Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[Steffen Wolfrum]

Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:

>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly
>  i-Packages):
>
>  -- One --


Yes, a great work this ever up-to-date TeX distro!


-- Two --


Steffen

P.S. Although up to now I always installed Hans new versions directly 
in my local tree

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[Mark Smith]

Steffen Wolfrum wrote:

>Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:
>
>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly
>>  i-Packages):
>>
>>  -- One --

> -- Two --

 -- Three -- 

Re: OSX ConTeXt users inventory (was: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated)

[Maurice Diamantini]

Le 4 mars 05, à 14:49, Mark Smith a écrit :

>> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt
>>>>>>>>>> (and possibly i-Packages):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  -- One --

... --cut some bilions increments (;-) --

ONE more !

I use context from the last texlive (linux and mac osx)


-- Maurice Diamantini

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[David Wooten]

On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

> Steffen Wolfrum wrote:
>
>> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:
>>
>>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly
>>>  i-Packages):
>>>
>>>  -- One --
>
>> -- Two --
>
>  -- Three --

-- Four --

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[Thomas A.Schmitz]

On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:03 PM, David Wooten wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>> Steffen Wolfrum wrote:
>>
>>> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly
>>>>  i-Packages):
>>>>
>>>>  -- One --
>>
>>> -- Two --
>>
>>  -- Three --
>
> -- Four --
>
-- Five --

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[Alan Bowen]

Six

On Mar 4, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Thomas A.Schmitz wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:03 PM, David Wooten wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Steffen Wolfrum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly
>>>>>  i-Packages):
>>>>>
>>>>>  -- One --
>>>
>>>> -- Two --
>>>
>>>  -- Three --
>>
>> -- Four --
>>
> -- Five --
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
>

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[Steve Peter]

On Mar 4, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Alan Bowen wrote:

>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly 
>> i-Packages):
> Six

I guess that makes me lucky 7.

Wouldn't it be better to do this as a survey question on the ConTeXt 
wiki?

Steve

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[h h extern]

Steve Peter wrote:
> 
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Alan Bowen wrote:
> 
>>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly 
>>> i-Packages):
>>
>> Six
> 
> 
> I guess that makes me lucky 7.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to do this as a survey question on the ConTeXt wiki?

indeed, since as far as i could see, there were multiple no's 4, so that gives 
you a higher number

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[Adam Lindsay]

David Wooten said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:03:17 -0800:

>>>>  Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly
>>>>  i-Packages):
>>>>
>>>>  -- One --
>>
>>> -- Two --
>>
>>  -- Three --
>
>-- Four --

-- Vijf --
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept.     atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Lancaster University, InfoLab21        +44(0)1524/510.514
 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Matthias Weber]

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.


Best wishes,

Matthias  (#7)

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Adam Lindsay]

Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:50 -0500:

>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.

Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs?
Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" command,
for example?
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept.     atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Lancaster University, InfoLab21        +44(0)1524/510.514
 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Matthias Weber]

On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Adam Lindsay wrote:

> Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:50 -0500:
>
>> 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.
>
> Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs?
> Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" 
> command,
> for example?
> -- 
>


My TeX source file is a single file with images. Most of the TeX-work 
is done for positioning
floats I think (figures, tables) and for creating backgrounds.

So I just renamed the TeX file for both runs into new file names, and 
upated TeX for the second run.
I can redo the experiment on a clone machine which hasn't been updated 
yet, but I don't
know whether "texutil --purgeall" will change anything. But if you tell 
me that it will, I'll give it a try.

Matthias

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Adam Lindsay]

Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:35:13 -0500:

>> Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs?
>> Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" 
>> command,
>> for example?
>> -- 
>>
>
>
>My TeX source file is a single file with images. Most of the TeX-work 
>is done for positioning
>floats I think (figures, tables) and for creating backgrounds.
>
>So I just renamed the TeX file for both runs into new file names, and 
>upated TeX for the second run.
>I can redo the experiment on a clone machine which hasn't been updated 
>yet, but I don't
>know whether "texutil --purgeall" will change anything. But if you tell 
>me that it will, I'll give it a try.

Hmm. If you renamed the file for each run, then ignore that advice. I
don't think that would be it, then.
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept.     atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Lancaster University, InfoLab21        +44(0)1524/510.514
 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[h h extern]

Adam Lindsay wrote:
> Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:35:13 -0500:
> 
> 
>>>Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs?
>>>Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" 
>>>command,
>>>for example?
>>>-- 
>>>
>>
>>
>>My TeX source file is a single file with images. Most of the TeX-work 
>>is done for positioning
>>floats I think (figures, tables) and for creating backgrounds.
>>
>>So I just renamed the TeX file for both runs into new file names, and 
>>upated TeX for the second run.
>>I can redo the experiment on a clone machine which hasn't been updated 
>>yet, but I don't
>>know whether "texutil --purgeall" will change anything. But if you tell 
>>me that it will, I'll give it a try.
> 
> 
> Hmm. If you renamed the file for each run, then ignore that advice. I
> don't think that would be it, then.

can you make a small file that runs slower with the new versions?

sometimes these things are not related to context, but to your tex tree: the 
bigger the slower, as well as settings in texmf.cnf

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Hans Hagen]

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Matthias Weber]

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

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[h h extern]

Matthias Weber wrote:

> 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?

texexec reports it

> 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

because we preload quite some encodings (maybe i will switch to delayed loading) 
we need more has space now; just set it to 70000+ in texmf.cnf

>  21681 words of font info for 72 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000

>  164026 words of font info for 78 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000

i wonder why these differences ...6 big fonts ?

do you load extra fonts?

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hello Matthias,

> 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:



> ConTeXt  ver: 2005.03.02  fmt: 2005.3.4
>   total run time : 416 seconds

Our discussion was finished 2005.03.03 so you might have the old
(buggy) version. Do you get the same amount of tex runs on both
systems?

Patrick
-- 
ConTeXt wiki: http://contextgarden.net

Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated

[Gerben Wierda]

> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:
> P.S. Although up to now I always installed Hans new versions directly
> in my local tree

The ConTeXt-updater i-Package installs in the local tree as well, not
overwriting the base version in the main teTeX texmf tree. That way you
can go back to the version in the main tree by uninstalling the ConTeXt
updater.

During a TeX i-Package configure phase, the i-Package will detect a
ConTeXt in the local tree and report both versions and offer the
possibility to deinstall the one in the local tree as well.

G

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[Steffen Wolfrum]

Matthias Weber <matweber@indiana.edu> 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)



As far as I can judge the current version does not yet benefit from 
our discussion concerning the runs under OSX.

"ConTeXt  ver: 2005.03.02" (pragma site calls it 2005-02-03 [?] 15:19 
) doesn't include the changes that Patrick (no more "8 runs") found 
out:

sub FlushFiles
   { print TUO "%\n" . "% $Program / Files\n" . "%\n" ;
     foreach $File (sort keys %Files)
       { print TUO "% $File ($Files{$File})\n" }
     print TUO "%\n" ;
     $NOfFiles = keys %Files ;

"texutil.pl" is untouched.

I guess Hans is still verifying this perl hassle?

Steffen

Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?

[h h extern]

Steffen Wolfrum wrote:

> "texutil.pl" is untouched.
> 
> I guess Hans is still verifying this perl hassle?

i changed it, not sure if i uploaded that version; the problem is that i'm now 
on too slow lines; next week i'm at

   eurotex 2005

i'll see if i can use the adsl line there for uploading.

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------