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: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:12:02 +0000 Message-ID: <20081022211202.GA1037@muc.de> References: <20081022091136.GB924@muc.de> <20081022151444.GE924@muc.de> <48FF58FB.6000302@harpegolden.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224709386 22510 80.91.229.12 (22 Oct 2008 21:03:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:03:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David De La Harpe Golden Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 22 23:04:05 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 1Ksks0-0004bD-W7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:03:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49309 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kskqv-0002fW-D9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:02:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kskqp-0002fC-C6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:02:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kskqk-0002eJ-2c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:02:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56260 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kskqj-0002eG-Rn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:02:37 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:3610 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 1Kskqj-0005GA-Cp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:02:37 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 52395 invoked by uid 3782); 22 Oct 2008 21:02:25 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E2342D.dip.t-dialin.net [217.226.52.45]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:24 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 2590 invoked by uid 1000); 22 Oct 2008 21:12:02 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48FF58FB.6000302@harpegolden.net> 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:104859 Archived-At: Hi, David! On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:46:51PM +0100, David De La Harpe Golden wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>I have an extremely medium speed processor (Athlon 1.2 GHz) and, at > >>>the moment, a well-padded .emacs.desktop. > >>>Starting Emacs 22.3 takes 23 seconds. > >>>Starting Emacs 23.0 takes 38 seconds. > >The above times were on tty's. Trying it on X-Windows, there was no > >difference (or, at most, 1 or 2 seconds longer). > >> Stefan > 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. emacs-22 -Q starts in ~0.4 seconds. emacs-23 -Q starts in ~0.7 seconds. [*] For non-native English speakers: "he's getting on a bit" is a euphemism for "he's too old (for something)". > Of course it could be an emacs bug triggered on your system and not > mine, but I kinda wonder: is it only emacs or is everything slow? Is it > only slow to start or slow to update the display and whatnot? Makes me > think you might have a local system issue causing an I/O bottleneck, is > all, maybe no DMA on your HDD, or your system's low on RAM and is > already swapping or something. It's a 7 year old PC, with a 7 yo HDD, but with plenty of RAM (768 Mb). You really think 23 seconds is slow, loading emacs + 83 files? > On my admittedly higher-end newish multicore (but each core is only ~ > 2GHz and emacs isn't parallelized...) gnu+linux system, emacs23 takes 1 > to 2 seconds to start, ..... How many file does your desktop load, and what's their total size? > , ..... including the ridiculous happy-dance across the screen the > initial X11 frame does (known-bug afaik), and I thought it was getting > a bit sluggish (whenever an app start time is > 1 sec I start to notice > and get irritated), but I put it down to the happy-dancing. With a > .emacs.desktop of 100 random .el files from the emacs source tree, > start time was 2 to 3 seconds. OK, 100 random files.el. How big were they? > Iceweasel takes 2 to 3 secs and oowriter (probably the bloatiest thing I > have installed) 11 secs ? Firefox 1.0.4 takes ~2.5 secs to load (but it was probably in the disk cache when I timed it). -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).