From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/51055 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: spamtrap@koldfront.dk (Adam =?iso-8859-1?q?Sj=F8gren?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Time to display *Article*, regression from 0.14 to 0.16 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:51:06 +0100 Organization: koldfront - analysis & revolution, Copenhagen, Denmark Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87znnfho1x.fsf@virgil.koldfront.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1048841563 21631 80.91.224.249 (28 Mar 2003 08:52:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Fri Mar 28 09:52:42 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ypbN-0005cl-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:52:42 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 18ypaC-0007Yr-00; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:51:28 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:52:30 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (sclp3.sclp.com [66.230.238.2]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA04247 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:52:15 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 65083 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2003 08:51:08 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 65078 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 08:51:08 -0000 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org (80.91.224.244) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 08:51:08 -0000 Original-Received: from news by quimby.gnus.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18ypc1-0001Xi-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:53:21 +0100 Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Path: not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnus.ding Original-Lines: 36 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 0x50c70771.adsl-fixed.tele.dk Original-X-Trace: quimby.gnus.org 1048841601 5537 80.199.7.113 (28 Mar 2003 08:53:21 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby.gnus.org Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Mar 2003 08:53:21 GMT Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwCAMAAABg3Am1AAAATlBMVEUwIA397p/+42 vRlEKIXyVINBBTRBr+12y4gjtkQBD9xVKsdzhyRxL77LX4uk37/seaaSn7+sXtpkB1VSVBKA 5dORFlUST69L55Wyv95agm0PQpAAACTElEQVR42o3UyXaDMAwFUIcpNIQwOMHm/3+0Gm1hwm m1yOlCt0+yAbdh+SbG6LWaeR7W+22aQhjHHWrEClDLsjgCTWP6GVQBwFgAEM5TQAn6V7VMSx mA9QVECKgfMNHCCaabAIg42x2aS7AsPJJnwCTGZh6G+h4mHSmBBaacXPQZRI8/CFYB+35KEE BLMAHQM6D+4xIWaCGo8RoMyALBlkYS0DOQU+VjHS2AY82iEQAbHsBY3sNxpAeBXWcKJeCLkI RhwHsINiGkCAZ2CQAw0qu6XQDaIeaZYB0c6QVLLHlrCzDBH5eGkdbHHopjYkHP0iEiCqgoYj 8IIPw+SIT3GcBMIYEsRgYYYZ4lXGJ9YYSCvQRyFQpmAOt9NxH7CUR5/HAdBDLUJdh8eiMaeo Nq3lsP6gw2ebghhWeq6697Z7BFfYtkJhrK3h78cQD8Avno5ZzqdBnp4wE/BojIa+saKkhZIJ t7EsNZlDukzemg8JElcUcRxvMpbVvX0VheI/pergM/goqc7QfxfBKhu7ACPzrhADqt50YzSY Qe1sREn9buUJBCl6dihZCKUib53HdF/fw8vcxUc624PH4rJ3du77rP55NJGuz1uFfVzX3p79 oWBRF4mfohb7OuBWhTGaFFzF30o8CxGsroMYbLfe8m8RHBpAC28/1+t28VdMBE+gTatrPNWn YRIbhDW/zv94Ho+c6CIOF7qxGfp2zC5Wyz04I/01h0XDnGtafurFQAgcnoiZzdRXciesSUA+ WumosURlDurzKi/Rc4prTtL++ygjMuMAZXAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2Z00d+WlVGQZOKE9ub4g2iwLJBs= Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:51055 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:51055 Hi. I recently went from Oort Gnus 0.14 to 0.16. Now, when I want to read a long email (nnml, stored locally), say 1000 lines (that has two long URLs on each line, btw.) 0.16 takes apprx. 14 seconds (!) from the time I type SPC to the buffer is displayed, hogging the CPU. I tried switching back to 0.14 - exactly same configuration - and the long email in question displays almost instantly (less than one second delay). I see the same behaviour for all long emails. I don't feel any speed difference on small emails (maybe it's there but less noticable, I don't know). This is on a Pentium 4, 2.4 GHz running Linux. Did something get immensely slower between 0.14 and 0.16, did something change so I need to change my configuration, or what gives? I tried looking back a couple of hundred articles here to see if anyone reported something similar, but didn't see it, so here I am. If you want more information, tell me what and I'll try to deliver. Best regards, Adam -- "Hvilken sanning, Måns, är sann?" Adam Sjøgren asjo@koldfront.dk