From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 23.0 is much slower starting than Emacs 22.3 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:21:32 +0000 Message-ID: <20081023092132.GC2666@muc.de> References: <20081022091136.GB924@muc.de> <20081022151444.GE924@muc.de> <48FF58FB.6000302@harpegolden.net> <20081022211202.GA1037@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224753201 9438 80.91.229.12 (23 Oct 2008 09:13:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: david@harpegolden.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 23 11:14:21 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KswFt-0002l8-KW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:13:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53817 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KswEo-0002lb-2o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KswEd-0002ic-BJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:12:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KswEb-0002hS-TL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:12:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55773 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KswEb-0002hN-LS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:12:01 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:1249 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KswEa-0006Vx-PH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:12:01 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 55946 invoked by uid 3782); 23 Oct 2008 09:11:55 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E53152.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.49.82]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:11:52 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 2997 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Oct 2008 09:21:32 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:104899 Archived-At: Hi, Eli! On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:19:56PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:12:02 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > >>>Starting Emacs 22.3 takes 23 seconds. > > > >>>Starting Emacs 23.0 takes 38 seconds. > Is this with cold or warm cache? Is there a difference? A warm start each time. > > > FWIW, I'd find your emacs22 time pretty unacceptable, never mind > > > the emacs23 one, even on a 1.2GHz-class machine. Are a lot of > > > people putting up with that sort of start time? Ouch. > > Hey, don't be so hard on my poor little PC! It's getting on a > > bit[*]. There's 83 files being loaded by desktop, with a total of > > 7801019 bytes. > How many seconds does it take to run "sed -n -e s/xyzzy/xyzzy/p" on > all those files, on that machine? (That should give us a baseline of > the disk and filesystem performance.) >From a cold start, "time grep wtioxxhs $BUFFERS" gave real 0m1.798s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.034s Second time round, with the files presumably in the file cache: real 0m0.034s user 0m0.012s sys 0m0.020s So I don't think my PC's disk drives are the cause. [ .... ] -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).