From: Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com>
Subject: Re: Gnus slow?
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:47:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r7n0zjx9.fsf@orebokech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b9y8y999stc.fsf@jpl.org> (Katsumi Yamaoka's message of "Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:40:15 +0900")
Here are the ELP results. In all cases I started a new Emacs instance,
started Gnus, started profiling, hit `g', then stopped profiling at the
"Checking new news...done" message. The two Gnus versions tested are a
No Gnus checkout as of May 12th (which I will name version A) and the
latest CVS from this morning (version B). Four tests are performed: for
the `gnus' and the `nntp' package, for versions A and B. I have one
nnml server (but no new articles for it), and three nntp servers:
news.free.fr, news.gmane.org and news.gnus.org.
Package gnus, version A (first 10 lines):
Function Name Call Count Elapsed Time Average Time
================================ ========== ============ ============
gnus-group-get-new-news 1 1.465511 1.465511
gnus-get-unread-articles 1 1.277827 1.277827
gnus-activate-group 405 0.6969249999 0.0017208024
gnus-request-scan 200 0.5125570000 0.0025627850
gnus-topic-prepare-topic 44 0.509935 0.0115894318
gnus-read-active-file-2 2 0.469293 0.2346465
gnus-retrieve-groups 2 0.464826 0.232413
gnus-group-list-groups 1 0.1848060000 0.1848060000
Package gnus, version B (first 10 lines):
Function Name Call Count Elapsed Time Average Time
================================ ========== ============ ============
gnus-group-get-new-news 1 29.122044 29.122044
gnus-get-unread-articles 1 28.808084 28.808084
gnus-activate-group 808 28.273399000 0.0349918304
gnus-topic-prepare-topic 44 0.7627989999 0.0173363409
gnus-request-scan 200 0.5203380000 0.0026016900
gnus-read-active-file-2 2 0.402818 0.201409
gnus-retrieve-groups 2 0.398634 0.199317
gnus-group-list-groups 1 0.310868 0.310868
Package nntp, version A:
Function Name Call Count Elapsed Time Average Time
================================ ========== ============ ============
nntp-accept-process-output 1592 1.5516599999 0.0009746608
nntp-retrieve-groups 2 1.5244879999 0.7622439999
nntp-accept-response 1525 1.502601 0.0009853121
nntp-request-group 1 0.065724 0.065724
nntp-find-connection-buffer 1598 0.0067499999 4.224...e-06
nntp-erase-buffer 205 0.0009970000 4.863...e-06
nntp-open-server 3 0.0002960000 9.866...e-05
nntp-server-opened 11 6.2e-05 5.636...e-06
nntp-possibly-change-group 3 5.3e-05 1.766...e-05
nntp-decode-text 1 1.5e-05 1.5e-05
nntp-close-group 1 4e-06 4e-06
Package nntp, version B:
Function Name Call Count Elapsed Time Average Time
================================ ========== ============ ============
nntp-accept-process-output 40433 39.736943999 0.0009827849
nntp-request-group 404 39.094312999 0.0967681014
nntp-retrieve-groups 2 1.069817 0.5349085
nntp-accept-response 1075 1.0523970000 0.0009789739
nntp-find-connection-buffer 40439 0.1772040000 4.382...e-06
nntp-erase-buffer 1011 0.0073319999 7.252...e-06
nntp-possibly-change-group 406 0.0068940000 1.698...e-05
nntp-server-opened 820 0.0052629999 6.418...e-06
nntp-decode-text 404 0.0048309999 1.195...e-05
nntp-request-update-info 404 0.0015660000 3.876...e-06
nntp-open-server 6 0.000618 0.000103
nntp-close-group 1 4e-06 4e-06
My observations:
- with version B, fetching articles takes 29s in the first run, more
than 40s in the second where version A takes 1.5s.
- version B has a lot more of NNTP activity: it call nntp-request-group
for each group.
- version B activates twice as many groups as version A.
Cheers,
--
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | Sometimes I don't know where
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | this dirty road is taking me,
| sometimes I can't even see
| the reason why.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-11 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-10 12:47 Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-10 13:05 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-10 14:39 ` Gabor Z.Papp
2004-11-10 18:41 ` Jesper Harder
2004-11-10 23:40 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-11 11:47 ` Romain Francoise [this message]
2004-11-12 7:27 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-12 8:20 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-12 9:06 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-12 13:15 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-12 13:53 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-15 5:32 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-15 13:26 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-15 16:40 ` Dan Christensen
2004-11-16 16:17 ` Reiner Steib
2004-11-16 20:41 ` Dan Christensen
2004-11-16 21:21 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-16 21:51 ` Simon Josefsson
2004-11-17 15:22 ` Frank Schmitt
2004-11-17 19:57 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-18 11:04 ` Frank Schmitt
2004-11-19 7:28 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-19 14:17 ` Kai Grossjohann
2004-11-19 22:14 ` Frank Schmitt
2004-11-20 16:49 ` Kai Grossjohann
2004-11-20 20:39 ` nnimap syncing (was: Gnus slow?) Steven E. Harris
2004-11-20 22:58 ` nnimap syncing Simon Josefsson
2004-11-22 0:59 ` Gnus slow? Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-22 7:57 ` Matt Armstrong
2004-11-22 8:58 ` Kai Grossjohann
2004-11-23 20:43 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-25 0:19 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-25 7:41 ` Romain Francoise
2004-11-25 7:55 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-11-11 7:16 ` Adam Sjøgren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87r7n0zjx9.fsf@orebokech.com \
--to=romain@orebokech.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).