* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
@ 2005-03-04 20:13 Steffen Wolfrum
2005-03-05 9:15 ` h h extern
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steffen Wolfrum @ 2005-03-04 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 20:13 No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Steffen Wolfrum
@ 2005-03-05 9:15 ` h h extern
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: h h extern @ 2005-03-05 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber
2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay
2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen
@ 2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach
2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Gundlach @ 2005-03-09 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber
@ 2005-03-05 9:20 ` h h extern
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: h h extern @ 2005-03-05 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay
@ 2005-03-05 9:17 ` h h extern
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: h h extern @ 2005-03-05 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber
@ 2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay
2005-03-05 9:17 ` h h extern
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen
@ 2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber
2005-03-05 9:20 ` h h extern
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay
@ 2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber
2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber
2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay
@ 2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen
2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber
2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Hans Hagen @ 2005-03-04 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber
@ 2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay
2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber
2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen
2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
2005-03-04 16:48 ` Adam Lindsay
@ 2005-03-04 17:13 ` Matthias Weber
2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
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)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-03-09 8:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-03-04 20:13 No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Steffen Wolfrum
2005-03-05 9:15 ` h h extern
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-03-04 16:03 ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated David Wooten
2005-03-04 16:48 ` Adam Lindsay
2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber
2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay
2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber
2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay
2005-03-05 9:17 ` h h extern
2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen
2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber
2005-03-05 9:20 ` h h extern
2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).