From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Abrahams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gnu Emacs way slower than XEmacs Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:52:37 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <84r87ulpts.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422123301.GA26968@gnu.org> <84lly2lity.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422150920.GA7693@gnu.org> <84n0iijz8u.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <848yu2tmc4.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <9003-Wed23Apr2003214013+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051142191 404 80.91.224.249 (23 Apr 2003 23:56:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 24 01:56:29 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 198U6H-00006G-00 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:56:29 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 198UCF-0002On-00 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:02:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 198U5V-0004Ag-05 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:55:41 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 198U4d-0003sw-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:54:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 198U2y-0002eH-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:53:04 -0400 Original-Received: from stlport.com ([64.39.31.56]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 198U2u-0002bQ-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:53:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [146.115.123.42] (account dave HELO PENGUIN.boost-consulting.com) by stlport.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 227854; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:52:57 -0700 Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <9003-Wed23Apr2003214013+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:40:13 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090018 (Oort Gnus v0.18) XEmacs/21.4 (Native Windows TTY Support (Windows), windows-nt) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13408 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13408 "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > Then how about profiling the lengthy operation? See the instructions > in elp.el for more details. OK, the results are posted here: http://users.rcn.com/abrahams/elp/ I enabled profiling for gnus-*, imap-*, and nnimap-*. When I watched my network throughput, Gnu Emacs' looked like: __/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/\__ and XEmacs' looked like /\/\/\/\ | | ___/ \_____ (roughly speaking). Thanks for looking at this. P.S. If it's any consolation, GNU Emacs is *WAY* faster than XEmacs at sending mail to the SMTP server ;-) -Dave -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com