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

Steffen Wolfrum wrote:

...

Uwe Koloska wrote:

...

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

-- One --

...

-- Two --

-- Three --

-- Four --

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 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

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 -----------------------------------------------------------------

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)

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

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 -----------------------------------------------------------------

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

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