From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/18695 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matthias Weber Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:43:56 -0500 Message-ID: <25bd72d148cfa915d22ca6604af56890@indiana.edu> References: <20050304164812.20495@mail.comp.lancs.ac.uk> <413b3ca978e6f281d4843dad4a11bc58@indiana.edu> <422899D9.1040305@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109961775 18790 80.91.229.2 (4 Mar 2005 18:42:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Mar 04 19:42:54 2005 Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D7HhN-0006ap-9k for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:38:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154411281F; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:44:04 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27758-06-3; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:44:01 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D532127FB; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:44:01 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3D5127FB for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:44:00 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27758-06-2 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:43:59 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from julesburg.uits.indiana.edu (julesburg.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.75]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031C7127E4 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:43:58 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-relay.iu.edu (fontz.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.76]) by julesburg.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id j24IhuaN012313 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:43:56 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from [129.79.94.193] (129-79-94-193.dhcp-bl.indiana.edu [129.79.94.193]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail-relay.iu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id j24Ihuqt010288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:43:56 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <422899D9.1040305@wxs.nl> Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-MailScanner-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-MailScanner-To: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:18695 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:18695 On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Hans Hagen wrote: > Matthias Weber wrote: >> Hello, >> after the recent discussion of ConTeXt processing (some) files 4 >> times as often under OS X >> than elsewhere, I decided to upgrade to the most recent beta and run >> a speed comparison >> on notes I am writing. To my dismay, here are the results: >> Old version: >> ConTeXt ver: 2004.11.23 fmt: 2004.12.16 >> TeXExec 5.2.3 >> total run time : 324 seconds >> New version: >> ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 >> total run time : 416 seconds >> And I was hoping for a speed increase by a factor of 4 :( >> (I renamed the TeX source for both runs) >> Of course I am completely ignorant about the internals, but at least >> I didn't expect that it would run slower. > > how many runs? > > normally context only becomes faster, so i wonder why it is so much > slower > > did you compare the logs? > > Hans > How do I count the number of runs? I mean, do I have to count, or does it tell me somewhere so that I can look it up? The log files are lengthy, maybe the memory usage is of interest: Run A: 12246 strings out of 64833 221604 string characters out of 691267 4755370 words of memory out of 6327867 43583 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000 21681 words of font info for 72 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000 104 hyphenation exceptions out of 1000 58i,30n,104p,1295b,3134s stack positions out of 1500i,500n,5000p,200000b,5000s 6067 PDF objects out of 300000 857 named destinations out of 131072 956 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 65536 Run B: Here is how much of TeX's memory you used: 12374 strings out of 62208 224135 string characters out of 638791 4793260 words of memory out of 6324620 46119 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000 164026 words of font info for 78 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000 144 hyphenation exceptions out of 1000 58i,30n,104p,1295b,3136s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,6000p,200000b,40000s PDF statistics: 6073 PDF objects out of 300000 857 named destinations out of 131072 956 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 65536 The 'words of font info' (whatever it is) looks kind of strange to me. Matthias