(I am not sure why these were sent to lilypond-user, moving back to lilypond-devel where they belong)
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 23:14 +0100, Jean Abou Samra wrote: > Le 21/11/2022 à 22:10, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond > development a écrit : > > > And whether we can just *require* LuaTeX and stop looking for pdfTeX > > > and XeTeX altogether? > > I did a few measurements for the case of building the LilyPond > > documentation and, in terms of speed with the "CI configuration" (no > > extractpdfmark and using the Ghostscript API), LuaTeX seems to position > > itself between pdfTeX, which remains the fastest, and XeTeX. So at > > least in my opinion, this would be a viable path and we could just > > always build with LuaTeX. > > Interesting. Do you still have the precise timings around? Yes, of course: XeTeX real 3m55.427s user 33m11.744s sys 1m45.433s pdfTeX real 3m44.164s user 31m43.151s sys 1m15.535s LuaTeX real 3m51.352s user 33m2.542s sys 1m30.938s This is with "-j12 CPU_COUNT=12". I didn't post the absolute numbers initially because with parallelism, the PDF compilation may actually be hidden behind the invocations of lilypond-book (for "real" time) and the "user" time may be influenced by how long parallel lilypond-book processes have to wait for their turn to lock the lybook-db. Conclusion: If this is to become a serious proposal, we should test some configurations with less parallelism (shared runners are sequential, my runner has two cores, and Karlin's runner (new btw since last week) has four cores). Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part