Re: Is your ConTeXt too slow?

[Jens-Uwe Morawski <morawski@gmx.net>]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:30:56 +0100
Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

> At 09:36 PM 11/7/2002 +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
> 
> >Hi all (or mainly the users of Unix-like systems)
> >
> >after i've bought a new notebook and installed the recent
> >Redhat Linux system i found that an updated ConTeXt runs
> >very slow. First i thought that Hans had too much time
> >and implemented a few thousand new features that need
> >their time, but ...
> >
> >... it is a queerer story. Here are the run times of
> >an example document (many inline MP graphics, 18 pages,
> >many terminal messages !!) on different terminal programs
> >for X-Windows:
> >
> >gnome-terminal:         2 min 18 sec
> >konsole (KDE-terminal): 1 min 30 sec
> >xterm:                  1 min  5 sec
> >directly on the console
> >         (no X-Windows):       58 sec
> >
> >Normally i use the first. Hmm... ;-(
> >
> >Don't ask me for reasons, but if your ConTeXt is too
> >slow, ask yourself if you run it on the right terminal -)
> 
> Can you check if kpsewhich runs ok? For instance
> 
>    kpsewhich colo-ini.tex
> 
>    kpsewhich cmr10.tfm
> 
> maybe no ls-R file is found and consulted, resulting in a full scan of the 
> texmf file structure.

No, no. TeX finds its files very fast. I could improve that with a smaller
texmf-tree, but 1+ min for the job is IMO okay; it runs 3xConTeXt,
2xTeXUtil and 2xMetaPost. The problem is the terminal program. It seems
that the drawing of those many messages on the terminal needs much time.
If i use a slow terminal, i.e. gnome-terminal, then the runtime increases.

Can i switch off the messages generated by ConTeXt, this would help to
compare.

Jens