Hi all (or mainly the users of Unix-like systems)
after i've bought a new notebook and installed the recent Redhat Linux system i found that an updated ConTeXt runs very slow. First i thought that Hans had too much time and implemented a few thousand new features that need their time, but ...
... it is a queerer story. Here are the run times of an example document (many inline MP graphics, 18 pages, many terminal messages !!) on different terminal programs for X-Windows:
gnome-terminal: 2 min 18 sec konsole (KDE-terminal): 1 min 30 sec xterm: 1 min 5 sec directly on the console (no X-Windows): 58 sec
Normally i use the first. Hmm... ;-(
Don't ask me for reasons, but if your ConTeXt is too slow, ask yourself if you run it on the right terminal -)
Jens
At 09:36 PM 11/7/2002 +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
Hi all (or mainly the users of Unix-like systems)
after i've bought a new notebook and installed the recent Redhat Linux system i found that an updated ConTeXt runs very slow. First i thought that Hans had too much time and implemented a few thousand new features that need their time, but ...
... it is a queerer story. Here are the run times of an example document (many inline MP graphics, 18 pages, many terminal messages !!) on different terminal programs for X-Windows:
gnome-terminal: 2 min 18 sec konsole (KDE-terminal): 1 min 30 sec xterm: 1 min 5 sec directly on the console (no X-Windows): 58 sec
Normally i use the first. Hmm... ;-(
Don't ask me for reasons, but if your ConTeXt is too slow, ask yourself if you run it on the right terminal -)
Can you check if kpsewhich runs ok? For instance
kpsewhich colo-ini.tex
kpsewhich cmr10.tfm
maybe no ls-R file is found and consulted, resulting in a full scan of the texmf file structure.
[you can also set the kpse debug switch]
[here, i run a minimal context distribution which is esp on smaller jobs much faster, since in uses a 50 MEG texmf tree (including fonts) instead of the main 500 MEG one)
Hans
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:30:56 +0100 Hans Hagen pragma@wxs.nl wrote:
At 09:36 PM 11/7/2002 +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
Hi all (or mainly the users of Unix-like systems)
after i've bought a new notebook and installed the recent Redhat Linux system i found that an updated ConTeXt runs very slow. First i thought that Hans had too much time and implemented a few thousand new features that need their time, but ...
... it is a queerer story. Here are the run times of an example document (many inline MP graphics, 18 pages, many terminal messages !!) on different terminal programs for X-Windows:
gnome-terminal: 2 min 18 sec konsole (KDE-terminal): 1 min 30 sec xterm: 1 min 5 sec directly on the console (no X-Windows): 58 sec
Normally i use the first. Hmm... ;-(
Don't ask me for reasons, but if your ConTeXt is too slow, ask yourself if you run it on the right terminal -)
Can you check if kpsewhich runs ok? For instance
kpsewhich colo-ini.tex
kpsewhich cmr10.tfm
maybe no ls-R file is found and consulted, resulting in a full scan of the texmf file structure.
No, no. TeX finds its files very fast. I could improve that with a smaller texmf-tree, but 1+ min for the job is IMO okay; it runs 3xConTeXt, 2xTeXUtil and 2xMetaPost. The problem is the terminal program. It seems that the drawing of those many messages on the terminal needs much time. If i use a slow terminal, i.e. gnome-terminal, then the runtime increases.
Can i switch off the messages generated by ConTeXt, this would help to compare.
Jens
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:03:48AM +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:30:56 +0100 Hans Hagen pragma@wxs.nl wrote:
At 09:36 PM 11/7/2002 +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
Hi all (or mainly the users of Unix-like systems)
after i've bought a new notebook and installed the recent Redhat Linux system i found that an updated ConTeXt runs very slow. First i thought that Hans had too much time and implemented a few thousand new features that need their time, but ...
... it is a queerer story. Here are the run times of an example document (many inline MP graphics, 18 pages, many terminal messages !!) on different terminal programs for X-Windows:
gnome-terminal: 2 min 18 sec konsole (KDE-terminal): 1 min 30 sec xterm: 1 min 5 sec directly on the console (no X-Windows): 58 sec
Normally i use the first. Hmm... ;-(
Don't ask me for reasons, but if your ConTeXt is too slow, ask yourself if you run it on the right terminal -)
Can you check if kpsewhich runs ok? For instance
kpsewhich colo-ini.tex
kpsewhich cmr10.tfm
maybe no ls-R file is found and consulted, resulting in a full scan of the texmf file structure.
No, no. TeX finds its files very fast. I could improve that with a smaller texmf-tree, but 1+ min for the job is IMO okay; it runs 3xConTeXt, 2xTeXUtil and 2xMetaPost. The problem is the terminal program. It seems that the drawing of those many messages on the terminal needs much time. If i use a slow terminal, i.e. gnome-terminal, then the runtime increases.
Can i switch off the messages generated by ConTeXt, this would help to compare.
Did you try to run context with output redirected to a file? How long does that take?
try texexec yourfile.tex > logfile
then look at the file called logfile to see the messages.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:28:14 -0500 Jan Hlavacek jhlavacek@sf.edu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:03:48AM +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:30:56 +0100 Hans Hagen pragma@wxs.nl wrote:
At 09:36 PM 11/7/2002 +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote:
gnome-terminal: 2 min 18 sec konsole (KDE-terminal): 1 min 30 sec xterm: 1 min 5 sec directly on the console (no X-Windows): 58 sec
Don't ask me for reasons, but if your ConTeXt is too slow, ask yourself if you run it on the right terminal -)
maybe no ls-R file is found and consulted, resulting in a full scan of the texmf file structure.
No, no. TeX finds its files very fast. I could improve that with a smaller texmf-tree, but 1+ min for the job is IMO okay; it runs 3xConTeXt, 2xTeXUtil and 2xMetaPost. The problem is the terminal program. It seems that the drawing of those many messages on the terminal needs much time. If i use a slow terminal, i.e. gnome-terminal, then the runtime increases.
Did you try to run context with output redirected to a file? How long does that take?
try texexec yourfile.tex > logfile
ahh, interesting idea. Now it is independent from the used terminal and a run needs about 50 seconds.
Jens
At 04:51 PM 11/8/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Did you try to run context with output redirected to a file? How long does that take?
try texexec yourfile.tex > logfile
ahh, interesting idea. Now it is independent from the used terminal and a run needs about 50 seconds.
another option is to choose another terminal font (bitmap versus outline)
also, try
texexec --silent .....
Hans ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------
another option is to choose another terminal font (bitmap versus outline)
I normally hide my terminal window (Win Cmd, too) at bigger jobs.
Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-
Hans Hagen -
Henning Hraban Ramm -
Jan Hlavacek -
Jens-Uwe Morawski