Re: Emacs-devel list IS slow [was Re: follow mode for occur]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: address@hidden (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: 28 May 2004 10:43:53 +0200
> 
> Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Is it just me or the emacs-devel list is very very slow? 
> 
> There is DEFINITELY a problem at gnu.org again.
> 
> For example, the following message has been waiting inside
> gnu.org for more than 24 hours.

Here's another example.  Note that it took 3 hours for the message to
make the leg from mail to the list:

    Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34)
            id 1BTMah-0004pp-KT
            for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:14:43 -0400
    Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34)
            id 1BTJjj-00068U-HL
            for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:12:23 -0400

and the whopping 22 hours from the list back to email:

    Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
            by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
            id 1BThng-0007zS-R9
            for address@hidden; Fri, 28 May 2004 09:53:32 -0400
    Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34)
            id 1BTMah-0004pp-KT
            for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:14:43 -0400

Can someone on system-hackers please explain what is going on and why?

The full message follows:

Mail-from: From address@hidden Fri May 28 17:58:29 2004
Return-path: <address@hidden>
Envelope-to: address@hidden
Delivery-date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:58:29 -0400
Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
        by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
        id 1BTpMz-0005PA-JX
        for address@hidden; Fri, 28 May 2004 17:58:29 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
        by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
        id 1BThng-0007zS-R9
        for address@hidden; Fri, 28 May 2004 09:53:32 -0400
Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34)
        id 1BTMah-0004pp-KT
        for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:14:43 -0400
Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34)
        id 1BTJjj-00068U-HL
        for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:12:23 -0400
Received: from [192.114.186.23] (helo=aragorn.inter.net.il)
        by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTJji-000685-LA
        for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:11:51 -0400
Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-231.inter.net.il [80.230.196.231])
        by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id CYN22387;
        Thu, 27 May 2004 15:04:51 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:02:59 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden (Kim F. Storm)
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <address@hidden> (address@hidden)
References: <address@hidden>
        <address@hidden>
        <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Improving emacs process performance (for free?)
X-BeenThere: address@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
        <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
        <mailto:address@hidden>
Sender: address@hidden
Errors-To: address@hidden

> From: address@hidden (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: 27 May 2004 11:02:30 +0200
> 
> So a minimum stack usage would be 3*10+16 = 46KB + what's allocated
> elsewhere.  Pretty close to 64K if you ask me :-|

Do we have some system supported by Emacs where the stack is merely a
64KB?  I think Emacs cannot run on such systems anyway; in the old
days when DJGPP (used to produce the DOS port) had a 256KB limit on
the stack, the Emacs binary was produced specially to have twice that
much, i.e. 512KB, because 256KB were not enough.

I think 512KB used by the DOS port is the smallest amount of stack we
have on any supported platform.


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel