Does MKIV take more time as MKII

Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Cecil Westerhof]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 215 bytes --]

I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times as
slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible, or should there be
something else that is responsible for this?
-- 
Cecil Westerhof

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 226 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Wolfgang Schuster]

Am 14.03.2011 um 11:23 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:

> I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,

Yes, MkIV is slower.

> or should there be something else that is responsible for this?

No, for simple document with lots of text MkIV is slower but there are parts (e.g. MetaPost) where MKIV is a lot faster than MkII.

Wolfgang

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Cecil Westerhof]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster <schuster.wolfgang@googlemail.com>

> > I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times
> as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,
>
> Yes, MkIV is slower.
>

Okay, thanks. I also updated my system. So that was the other possibility.




 No, for simple document with lots of text MkIV is slower but there are
> parts (e.g. MetaPost) where MKIV is a lot faster than MkII.
>

My document is mostly text.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 975 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Aditya Mahajan]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Cecil Westerhof wrote:

> 2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster <schuster.wolfgang@googlemail.com>
>
>>> I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times
>> as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,
>>
>> Yes, MkIV is slower.
>>
>
> Okay, thanks. I also updated my system. So that was the other possibility.

In my experience

context --silent=\* <filename>

speeds up compilation by a factor of 1.5 (but you loose all the logging 
messages)

Aditya
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Alan BRASLAU]

On Monday 14 March 2011 14:02:18 Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> > 2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster <schuster.wolfgang@googlemail.com>
> > 
> >>> I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2
> >>> times
> >> 
> >> as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,
> >> 
> >> Yes, MkIV is slower.
> > 
> > Okay, thanks. I also updated my system. So that was the other
> > possibility.
> 
> In my experience
> 
> context --silent=\* <filename>
> 
> speeds up compilation by a factor of 1.5 (but you loose all the logging
> messages)
> 

or

context --batch <filename>
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Cecil Westerhof]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 827 bytes --]

2011/3/14 Alan BRASLAU <alan.braslau@cea.fr>

> On Monday 14 March 2011 14:02:18 Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> > > 2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster <schuster.wolfgang@googlemail.com>
> > >
> > >>> I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2
> > >>> times
> > >>
> > >> as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,
> > >>
> > >> Yes, MkIV is slower.
> > context --silent=\* <filename>
> >
> > speeds up compilation by a factor of 1.5 (but you loose all the logging
> > messages)
> >
>
> or
>
> context --batch <filename>
>

Both did not work for me. But removing --purgeall from my script reduced the
time from 30 seconds to 10.

And because I generate (at the moment) 5 personalised versions, this is a
difference from 2:44 to 0:56.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1324 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Philipp Gesang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1124 bytes --]

On 2011-03-14 <11:23:55>, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times as
> slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible, or should there be
> something else that is responsible for this?

Hi Cecil,

regarding luatex/mkiv performance there are some comparisons
between different tex machines that Hans presented at tug 2009:

  <http://river-valley.tv/the-luatex-project-halfway-to-version-1/>

Of course, with respect to the rapid development these might be
out of date by now.

Best regards, Philipp


> -- 
> Cecil Westerhof

> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
> 
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
> archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Mojca Miklavec]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 14:47, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
> Both did not work for me. But removing --purgeall from my script reduced the
> time from 30 seconds to 10.

When you don't use --purgeall, ConTeXt calculates different things
(for example table of contents, cross-references etc.) and stores them
to temporary files. Next time when you compile the same document
without too many changes it simply reuses the old data.

But if you remove the temporary files with --purgeall, ConTeXt has to
recalculate everything from scratch. Out of curiosity I checked that
on my own document and realized exactly the same thing. Compile time
dropped from 27 to 9 seconds, but only because ConTeXt had to read and
typeset the document three times (I thought it usually did it twice).

If you remove all the temporary files and call context without
--purgeall, it will also take 30 seconds to typeset everything; it is
only the second and all the subsequent runs that finish the job
faster.

Mojca

PS: You would get the same kind of behaviour in MKII (however if MKII
only runs twice and if there is a speed factor of 1.5, you could
declare MKII being "three times faster" which does make some
difference when compilation time is long).

PPS (not to be taken (too) seriously): But I wouldn't be surprized if,
say, two years from now you would try to repeat the experiment just to
find out that MKIV became faster. (Unlikely to happen, but imaging
Taco coming to idea to use all the four processor cores of your new
machine and Hans reducing the number of required runs from three to
two plus some extra optimizations.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[John Haltiwanger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2331 bytes --]

You can't have it Good, Cheap, and Fast all at once ;)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Mojca Miklavec <
mojca.miklavec.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 14:47, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> >
> > Both did not work for me. But removing --purgeall from my script reduced
> the
> > time from 30 seconds to 10.
>
> When you don't use --purgeall, ConTeXt calculates different things
> (for example table of contents, cross-references etc.) and stores them
> to temporary files. Next time when you compile the same document
> without too many changes it simply reuses the old data.
>
> But if you remove the temporary files with --purgeall, ConTeXt has to
> recalculate everything from scratch. Out of curiosity I checked that
> on my own document and realized exactly the same thing. Compile time
> dropped from 27 to 9 seconds, but only because ConTeXt had to read and
> typeset the document three times (I thought it usually did it twice).
>
> If you remove all the temporary files and call context without
> --purgeall, it will also take 30 seconds to typeset everything; it is
> only the second and all the subsequent runs that finish the job
> faster.
>
> Mojca
>
> PS: You would get the same kind of behaviour in MKII (however if MKII
> only runs twice and if there is a speed factor of 1.5, you could
> declare MKII being "three times faster" which does make some
> difference when compilation time is long).
>
> PPS (not to be taken (too) seriously): But I wouldn't be surprized if,
> say, two years from now you would try to repeat the experiment just to
> find out that MKIV became faster. (Unlikely to happen, but imaging
> Taco coming to idea to use all the four processor cores of your new
> machine and Hans reducing the number of required runs from three to
> two plus some extra optimizations.)
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
> archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3148 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am 2011-03-14 um 20:52 schrieb Mojca Miklavec:

> PPS (not to be taken (too) seriously): But I wouldn't be surprized if,
> say, two years from now you would try to repeat the experiment just to
> find out that MKIV became faster. (Unlikely to happen, but imaging
> Taco coming to idea to use all the four processor cores of your new
> machine and Hans reducing the number of required runs from three to
> two plus some extra optimizations.)

You can’t use several threads (or even processor cores) at once for  
linear tasks like TeXing. We already had that discussion several times.
(It might be possible to re-write TeX again to parallelize some sub- 
tasks, but as far as I can imagine, this would yield minor speed gains  
after a huge programming effort.)


Greetlings from Lake Constance!
Hraban
---
http://www.fiee.net/texnique/
http://wiki.contextgarden.net
https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Hans Hagen]

On 14-3-2011 8:52, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

> PS: You would get the same kind of behaviour in MKII (however if MKII
> only runs twice and if there is a speed factor of 1.5, you could
> declare MKII being "three times faster" which does make some
> difference when compilation time is long).

depends on the changes ... in an automated flow, if you knwo what 
happens you can limit it with a flag

> PPS (not to be taken (too) seriously): But I wouldn't be surprized if,
> say, two years from now you would try to repeat the experiment just to
> find out that MKIV became faster. (Unlikely to happen, but imaging

sure, i'm current redoing the font code a bit and gain some time (and 
memory in mkiv) .. but don't expect miracles

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[luigi scarso]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On 14-3-2011 8:52, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> PS: You would get the same kind of behaviour in MKII (however if MKII
>> only runs twice and if there is a speed factor of 1.5, you could
>> declare MKII being "three times faster" which does make some
>> difference when compilation time is long).
>
> depends on the changes ... in an automated flow, if you knwo what happens
> you can limit it with a flag
>
>> PPS (not to be taken (too) seriously): But I wouldn't be surprized if,
>> say, two years from now you would try to repeat the experiment just to
>> find out that MKIV became faster. (Unlikely to happen, but imaging
>
> sure, i'm current redoing the font code a bit and gain some time (and memory
> in mkiv) .. but don't expect miracles

Maybe luajit can improve things considerably.

-- 
luigi
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Does MKIV take more time as MKII

[Hans Hagen]

On 16-3-2011 5:52, luigi scarso wrote:

> Maybe luajit can improve things considerably.

i wonder ... we don't do that many calculations

light userdata might help some (is on the agenda to be looke dinto)

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________