From xemacs-m  Mon Dec 16 11:15:41 1996
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19]) by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id LAA24412 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:15:39 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
          by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA29419; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:25:37 -0800
Sender: steve@xemacs.org
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 19.15-b4 bench results (Hanoi)
References: <199612160002.RAA28973@branagh.lanl.gov> 	<m2engrfgsj.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> 	<199612160501.WAA02208@branagh.lanl.gov> 	<199612160646.XAA02372@branagh.lanl.gov> 	<199612160657.XAA02385@branagh.lanl.gov> <199612161619.JAA03083@branagh.lanl.gov>
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
In-Reply-To: John Turner's message of Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:19:42 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.96)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 16 Dec 1996 09:25:36 -0800
Message-ID: <m2ohfu5rlb.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 42
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.72/XEmacs 19.15

>>>>> "John" == John Turner <turner@xdiv.lanl.gov> writes:

John> Following up to myself again:
>> When I use a frame of the size I normally use (the full height of my
>> screen, I believe 58 lines or so), it's slow.

That's the same thing I do.  I wonder how many people don't normally
run that way.

>> Times like I showed
>> before, over 10.  When I use a tiny little frame, just big enough to
>> display the towers, it rocks.  Under 4 seconds.

I can verify this behavior.  It goes from 601% the speed of Emacs
19.34 to 289% (6 times slower to 3 times slower).

John> I was thinking that the size of the frame should affect other
John> benchmarks as well, like the scrolling one, so I tested that.

John> It does indeed matter, but the advantage is in the opposite direction
John> for scrolling.  For a big frame it takes 75 seconds, for a small (10
John> lines or so) frame, it's 87.  Makes sense.

Indeed.  

John> I'm wondering if bench.el should pop up a frame of a predetermined
John> size in which to run benchmarks for which the frame size would
John> matter...

There's time enough for that later.  Right now we're brainstorming and
I'd like to keep the restrictions to a minimum so we can easily
explore different possibilities.

The question of why display-time slows things down so much still needs
to be answered.  I see it using itimer, and that's about it.  We
already attach an auto-save itimer, so I tried running the benchmarks
with that itimer deleted.  No change in running time. :-(
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.
"That Bill Clinton.  He probably doesn't know how to log on to the
Internet."  -- Rush Limbaugh, noted Computer Expert

