* Oort Gnus on emacs 20.7 a _lot_ faster than Gnus on XEmacs 21
@ 2001-10-06 22:14 Steinar Bang
2001-10-06 23:04 ` Karl Kleinpaste
2001-10-07 9:34 ` Simon Josefsson
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Steinar Bang @ 2001-10-06 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
Platform: P133MHz, 20MB RAM, debian woody, GNU emacs 20.7, XEmacs 21.4
Oort Gnus v0.04 (CVS update from yesterday)
I recently started running Gnus on a fairly slow piece of computing
machinery: a DEC HiNote Ultra II laptop, with a 133MHz Pentium
processor, and 20MB of RAM.
I'm running GNU Emacs and XEmacs directly from the consoles, since I
have so far been unsuccessful in creating a working XF86Config-4 file.
Since I have been using XEmacs for my Gnus'ing, I continued to do so
on this laptop. My problem is that Gnus run too slowly to be usable
in XEmacs on this machine. The least provocation (like eg. 5
keypresses in a row in the *Summary* buffer) sends XEmacs into garbage
collection, where it stays for a minute, and if I wish to open a
folder with 2000 unread, I might as well let it run overnight.
GNU emacs, with the exact same Gnus, is fairly fast. It rarely enters
garbage collection, and a folder with 2000 unread articles, opens in
about 10 seconds.
Is this kind of performance difference between GNU Emacs and XEmacs
common? Or is this just very visible on a machine as slow as the one
I'm using? Is the problem the lack of physical memory?
Or is there something in the current CVS Gnus, something that
provocates a lot of garbage collection in XEmacs?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Oort Gnus on emacs 20.7 a _lot_ faster than Gnus on XEmacs 21
2001-10-06 22:14 Oort Gnus on emacs 20.7 a _lot_ faster than Gnus on XEmacs 21 Steinar Bang
@ 2001-10-06 23:04 ` Karl Kleinpaste
2001-10-07 12:58 ` Steinar Bang
2001-10-07 9:34 ` Simon Josefsson
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Karl Kleinpaste @ 2001-10-06 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no> writes:
> in XEmacs on this machine. The least provocation (like eg. 5
> keypresses in a row in the *Summary* buffer) sends XEmacs into garbage
> collection, where it stays for a minute
...
> GNU emacs, with the exact same Gnus, is fairly fast. It rarely enters
> garbage collection
What value do you have for gc-cons-threshold in each?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Oort Gnus on emacs 20.7 a _lot_ faster than Gnus on XEmacs 21
2001-10-06 22:14 Oort Gnus on emacs 20.7 a _lot_ faster than Gnus on XEmacs 21 Steinar Bang
2001-10-06 23:04 ` Karl Kleinpaste
@ 2001-10-07 9:34 ` Simon Josefsson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Simon Josefsson @ 2001-10-07 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no> writes:
> Platform: P133MHz, 20MB RAM, debian woody, GNU emacs 20.7, XEmacs 21.4
> Oort Gnus v0.04 (CVS update from yesterday)
>
> I recently started running Gnus on a fairly slow piece of computing
> machinery: a DEC HiNote Ultra II laptop, with a 133MHz Pentium
> processor, and 20MB of RAM.
>
> I'm running GNU Emacs and XEmacs directly from the consoles, since I
> have so far been unsuccessful in creating a working XF86Config-4 file.
>
> Since I have been using XEmacs for my Gnus'ing, I continued to do so
> on this laptop. My problem is that Gnus run too slowly to be usable
> in XEmacs on this machine. The least provocation (like eg. 5
> keypresses in a row in the *Summary* buffer) sends XEmacs into garbage
> collection, where it stays for a minute, and if I wish to open a
> folder with 2000 unread, I might as well let it run overnight.
>
> GNU emacs, with the exact same Gnus, is fairly fast. It rarely enters
> garbage collection, and a folder with 2000 unread articles, opens in
> about 10 seconds.
>
> Is this kind of performance difference between GNU Emacs and XEmacs
> common? Or is this just very visible on a machine as slow as the one
> I'm using? Is the problem the lack of physical memory?
>
> Or is there something in the current CVS Gnus, something that
> provocates a lot of garbage collection in XEmacs?
How much does the machine swap? XEmacs is probably larger than Emacs
20 so the binary might become too large for the machine..
Try M-x elp-instrument-package RET on gnus, nn and mm to find out what
is taking so much time to enter the group -- one from Emacs and one
from XEmacs would be useful for comparison.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Oort Gnus on emacs 20.7 a _lot_ faster than Gnus on XEmacs 21
2001-10-06 23:04 ` Karl Kleinpaste
@ 2001-10-07 12:58 ` Steinar Bang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Steinar Bang @ 2001-10-07 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
>>>>> Karl Kleinpaste <karl@charcoal.com>:
> Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no> writes:
>> in XEmacs on this machine. The least provocation (like eg. 5
>> keypresses in a row in the *Summary* buffer) sends XEmacs into
>> garbage collection, where it stays for a minute
> ...
>> GNU emacs, with the exact same Gnus, is fairly fast. It rarely
>> enters garbage collection
> What value do you have for gc-cons-threshold in each?
400000 in GNU Emacs, and 500000 in XEmacs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-07 12:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-10-06 22:14 Oort Gnus on emacs 20.7 a _lot_ faster than Gnus on XEmacs 21 Steinar Bang
2001-10-06 23:04 ` Karl Kleinpaste
2001-10-07 12:58 ` Steinar Bang
2001-10-07 9:34 ` Simon Josefsson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).