From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16211 invoked from network); 8 May 2003 10:11:43 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 May 2003 10:11:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 29840 invoked by alias); 8 May 2003 10:11:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6086 Received: (qmail 29832 invoked from network); 8 May 2003 10:11:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 May 2003 10:11:30 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [138.190.3.49] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 8 May 2003 10:11:30 -0000 Received: from sbe2172.corproot.net (138.190.70.54) by sbe3778.swissptt.ch (MX V5.3 AnHp) with SMTP for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 12:11:28 +0200 Received: from sxmbx02.corproot.net ([138.190.70.161]) by sxmbx01.corproot.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 8 May 2003 12:11:29 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary" Subject: command-line editing speed Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 12:11:28 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: command-line editing speed Thread-Index: AcMVSi/34E2D2370EdeE3QAErC5QNw== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2003 10:11:29.0701 (UTC) FILETIME=[31659550:01C3154A] --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3154A.30632816" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3154A.30632816 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm running version 3.1.5 ($-=3D3567HRXZhiklms) on a relatively = powerful HP machine. Recently we've been noticing that command-line editing seems to have become much slower. Obviously this isn't due to changing the zsh. Curiously, it seems to be worse on our new machine, which is faster and has much fewer processes running and much lower load average (<0.5). On both machines, it is now considerably slower than ksh, and I think this did not use to be the case. To test this, I simply use the automatic repeat to key in about 60 chars, then hit escape and try going back and forth with the automatic repeat of h and l. Any clues how it could have gotten slower? Why is the new machine slower than the old? Would a newer version of ZSH be faster or slower? NHA --- Norman.Azadian@Swisscom.com +41 31 342 8129 MC-TO-MIT-SWM-TSW Swisscom Mobile AG ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3154A.30632816-- --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary--