[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1
From: |
ShengHuo ZHU |
Subject: |
Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1 |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:02:43 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) |
Daniel Ortmann <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
> - pressing o
> - 203 seconds
> - saw minimode download info
>
> - pressing g (right after o on the same article)
> - 68 seconds
> - saw no minimode download info
>
> - manually running munpack on the saved article, xv, exiting and checking time
> - 23 seconds
>
> I am experiencing cognitive dissonance. These numbers don't make sense
> to me. The g supposedly "refetches" the article (which is the subject
> of my original bug report), but there is no way that the article was
> actually "refetched" over the modem line in 68 seconds.
>
> ... And yet, the 68 seconds is very slow compared to the 23 seconds
> needed to process the article myself. Note that the 23 seconds
> involved manually running date, switching buffers to dired, running
> munpack, refreshing the dired buffer, running xv, exiting xv, running
> date again, etc. There was considerable manual overhead involved in
> that 23 seconds.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Is the g key, after the o key, *really* refetching the article? Is
> the document incorrect? Or does "refetch" mean something unusual?
Actually, Gnus uses several levels of caches. The one you encountered
is called backlog. The g key, after the o key, does not really
refetch the article from the NNTP server, but from the backlog buffer,
" *Gnus Backlog*".
> 2) Is there a way to reprocess the article after running o *without*
> refetching the article?
In most cases, Gnus doesn't refetch from the NNTP server.
> 3) Assuming that g after o does not actually refetch the article but
> merely redisplays the images, why is it so slow compared to manually
> running munpack and xv? Can anything be done to speed this up?
It is strange. It is pretty fast (about 3 sec) on my machine, even to
show an image of over 600KB. Could you copy the article to a local
backend, e.g. nnml, then type `g' in that group? Is this faster? And
could you show me the configuration of your machine? Maybe the speed
of CPU and the size of memory are related.
> 4) Does your new patch, which I installed, require a change to the
> documentation displayed when C-k g is pressed in a gnus summary
> buffer, reflecting that "maybe" the article will be refetched?
Do you mean "C-u g"? Maybe the document show be changed to "force
re-showing".
ShengHuo
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Daniel Ortmann, 2001/12/01
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Gerd Moellmann, 2001/12/01
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, ShengHuo ZHU, 2001/12/01
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Daniel Ortmann, 2001/12/06
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, ShengHuo ZHU, 2001/12/06
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Daniel Ortmann, 2001/12/07
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1,
ShengHuo ZHU <=
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Daniel Ortmann, 2001/12/11
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, ShengHuo ZHU, 2001/12/12
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Daniel Ortmann, 2001/12/12
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, ShengHuo ZHU, 2001/12/14
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/12/12
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Daniel Ortmann, 2001/12/12
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/12/13
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, ShengHuo ZHU, 2001/12/14
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/12/15
- Re: X performance suffers under emacs 21.1.1, Daniel Ortmann, 2001/12/07