From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 23.0 is much slower starting than Emacs 22.3 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:53:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20081022091136.GB924@muc.de> <20081022151444.GE924@muc.de> <48FF58FB.6000302@harpegolden.net> <20081022211202.GA1037@muc.de> <20081023092132.GC2666@muc.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224798864 23746 80.91.229.12 (23 Oct 2008 21:54:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: david@harpegolden.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 23 23:55:25 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 1Kt89M-0001Xp-Ei for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:55:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56770 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt88G-0004BR-7w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:54:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt87f-0003wV-Sw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:53:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt87f-0003w9-8f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:53:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42477 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt87f-0003w4-2z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:53:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il ([84.95.2.4]:54426) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kt87e-0002NP-H2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:53:38 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.108.148]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K9700LT5OVVE000@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:55:08 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20081023092132.GC2666@muc.de> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:104913 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:21:32 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, david@harpegolden.net > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > 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. Right, looks like neither the disk nor the filesystem are the factor. So we need to find which Emacs primitives became slower in v23.