3 ms·

If you have a ton of shell connections open at once, consider trying a "base station" linux machine from which you jump out to other machines, + tmux. This way

by sequoia 13y ago

If you have a ton of shell connections open at once, consider trying a "base station" linux machine from which you jump out to other machines, + tmux. This way you ssh to machine1, run tmux, then you can create as many sessions as you want in whatever combination of windows/tabs you like. Bonus: you can disconnect from machine1, and when you reconnect everything is still in place. Worth a try for sure!

mirkules 13y ago
My first thought was this sounds a lot like the "screen" command. Which is basically true, but with the added benefit of screen splitting. Also, tmux is distributed under the BSD license (instead of GPL). http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Screen_vs_tmux http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Screen_vs_tmux
- regularfry 13y ago
  That article implies that tmux is faster than screen. While it may be the case that it uses fewer resources (which I've not checked), it's exclusively been my experience that tmux is laggy where screen isn't.
  - Freaky 13y ago
    That's not been my experience at all - I can't say I've ever seen tmux perform noticeably worse than screen, but under extreme load tmux always seems to cope better. e.g. dumping 250k lines takes screen over a minute, while tmux will be done in under 3 seconds and be more responsive while that's happening. It's nice to be able to ^C something spammy and not have time to go make a cup of tea before it responds. I have experienced lagginess with tmux, but this has been more down to VTE and/or mosh performing particularly badly with large terminals. A fullscreen 266x188 tmux session on urxvt is massively smoother than with Terminator/gnome-terminal/Terminology/etc, and with remote sessions ssh is similarly massively smoother than mosh. Kind of disheartening given today's ridiculously powerful hardware.
    - regularfry 13y ago
      Weird. I've had tmux lock up when too much text gets dumped through it.

by sequoia 13y ago

mirkules 13y ago

My first thought was this sounds a lot like the "screen" command. Which is basically true, but with the added benefit of screen splitting. Also, tmux is distributed under the BSD license (instead of GPL). http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Screen_vs_tmux http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Screen_vs_tmux

regularfry 13y ago
That article implies that tmux is faster than screen. While it may be the case that it uses fewer resources (which I've not checked), it's exclusively been my experience that tmux is laggy where screen isn't.
- Freaky 13y ago
  That's not been my experience at all - I can't say I've ever seen tmux perform noticeably worse than screen, but under extreme load tmux always seems to cope better. e.g. dumping 250k lines takes screen over a minute, while tmux will be done in under 3 seconds and be more responsive while that's happening. It's nice to be able to ^C something spammy and not have time to go make a cup of tea before it responds. I have experienced lagginess with tmux, but this has been more down to VTE and/or mosh performing particularly badly with large terminals. A fullscreen 266x188 tmux session on urxvt is massively smoother than with Terminator/gnome-terminal/Terminology/etc, and with remote sessions ssh is similarly massively smoother than mosh. Kind of disheartening given today's ridiculously powerful hardware.
  - regularfry 13y ago
    Weird. I've had tmux lock up when too much text gets dumped through it.