Re: lilypond speed
- Original Message - From: "Martin Tarenskeen" To: "lilypond-user mailinglist" Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:42 AM Subject: lilypond speed Some day soon my still reliable but not very fast 10 year old laptop will have to be replaced by a more modern machine. Will Lilypond benifit much if my next computer will have one of those modern multi-core processors like the Intel i3/5/7 ? I'm just curious. -- Martin If you're using Windows, you definitely won't see an improvement with a multi-core machine. LilyPond is single-threaded, and so can only use a single core at a given time. It may be that your new machine will have more memory, and this is definitely beneficial for large scores, where Lily can take a lot of memory. Whether the processor will be faster depends solely on the processing power of _one_ of the cores of your new CPU versus the power of your old one. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
I was thinkig about that too. Parallelization in Lilypond can be possible. Imagine rendering one page in each core in parallel, or one system for each core. Also other kinds of optimizations for 'preview' modes, where you need more speed then optimal quality? Maybe improved performance can be a feature request for Lilypond 2.16 ? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
On a Mac, speed increase from a Core2Duo to a Corei5 is really noticeable, about 40% faster. I guess this is about the same on Windows or Linux. I think you'll see a huge difference. :) Philippe -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/lilypond-speed-tp30929720p30929766.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
lilypond speed
Some day soon my still reliable but not very fast 10 year old laptop will have to be replaced by a more modern machine. Will Lilypond benifit much if my next computer will have one of those modern multi-core processors like the Intel i3/5/7 ? I'm just curious. -- Martin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 22:05 +0100, Graham Percival wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > > Actually, I stumbled upon something very odd: though I haven't the > > exact numbers, with 2.12 my opera used to compile in ~40 minutes on > > Win32, ~25 minutes on Linux64 -- but now that I have upgraded to the > > latest git sources (that include Joe's recent work on vertical > > spacing), it takes more than... 90 minutes!!! > > (the PDF looks nicer though). > > How is that odd? More complicated algorithms take more time. I > haven't followed the details of the spacing changes, but I'd > certainly expect them to take longer. The algorithms shouldn't really be more complicated, just differently organized. If you can figure out which commit caused the problem, that would be helpful. Cheers, Joe ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > How is that odd? More complicated algorithms take more time. I > haven't followed the details of the spacing changes, but I'd > certainly expect them to take longer. I do too, but -- let me do the math -- a _360%_ increase, really? :-) Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > Actually, I stumbled upon something very odd: though I haven't the > exact numbers, with 2.12 my opera used to compile in ~40 minutes on > Win32, ~25 minutes on Linux64 -- but now that I have upgraded to the > latest git sources (that include Joe's recent work on vertical > spacing), it takes more than... 90 minutes!!! > (the PDF looks nicer though). How is that odd? More complicated algorithms take more time. I haven't followed the details of the spacing changes, but I'd certainly expect them to take longer. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > W00t, I got only > real 5m47.699s > user 5m32.306s > sys 0m11.697s > on my linux system (C2D @ 2 GHz), but I'm still on 2.12.1, which gave me some > error messages, though the PDF was created. Perhaps 2.13 is a little > faster(?) Actually, I stumbled upon something very odd: though I haven't the exact numbers, with 2.12 my opera used to compile in ~40 minutes on Win32, ~25 minutes on Linux64 -- but now that I have upgraded to the latest git sources (that include Joe's recent work on vertical spacing), it takes more than... 90 minutes!!! (the PDF looks nicer though). I'll investigate this problem a bit more, as I can hardly believe it myself. Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Frank wrote: >Am Donnerstag, 3. September 2009 schrieb Tim Reeves: > >> Mainly for my own curiosity, I compiled the Reubke Sonata score to check >> timing: >> WinXP SP3 32-bit, LP 2.13.3, LPT 2.12.869, on Intel C2D E9600 (2.8GHz), 2 >> GB RAM >> >> 5 min 38 seconds. >> >> A bit slower than the Linux times others got. >W00t, I got only >real5m47.699s >user5m32.306s >sys 0m11.697s >on my linux system (C2D @ 2 GHz), but I'm still on 2.12.1, which gave me some >error messages, though the PDF was created. Perhaps 2.13 is a little >faster(?) - Frank, I forgot to mention that I also got quite a few warnings [not errors] on 2.13.3 - I think due to a missing font - but like you still got the output file. Did you also have 2GB of RAM? - I understand that the amount of physical memory available makes a big difference in compile times on a large LP file. Perhaps if I ran Linux on my machine it would really scream, but I have to have Windows XP for work. At least its not Vista! Tim ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > From: Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > To: "Jonathan Wilkes" > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 6:40 AM > Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > > It sounds like there is a wide discrepancy depending > on machine/os/etc. > > Does anyone have any insight into how I could decrease > this time on my winxp machine? > > > > I feel like if I could get it down to something close > to one second, it would be a lot easier to learn Lilypond. > > > > Also: is there a way using LilypondTool to set > Lilypond to run every time I enter a barcheck? > > > Sure, as you can set a shortcut for running LilyPond, see > Utilities>Global options>Shortcuts, you can set the > shortcut to be | > > Bert Hi Bert, It seems that when I set "|" to be a shortcut for "Run Lilypond," it no longer prints the character; it only runs the shortcut. Do you know if there's a workaround for this? Thanks, Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Am Donnerstag, 3. September 2009 schrieb Tim Reeves: > Mainly for my own curiosity, I compiled the Reubke Sonata score to check > timing: > WinXP SP3 32-bit, LP 2.13.3, LPT 2.12.869, on Intel C2D E9600 (2.8GHz), 2 > GB RAM > > 5 min 38 seconds. > > A bit slower than the Linux times others got. W00t, I got only real5m47.699s user5m32.306s sys 0m11.697s on my linux system (C2D @ 2 GHz), but I'm still on 2.12.1, which gave me some error messages, though the PDF was created. Perhaps 2.13 is a little faster(?) -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' The first time you’ll get a Microsoft product that doesn’t suck will be the day they start producing vacuum cleaners. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Mainly for my own curiosity, I compiled the Reubke Sonata score to check timing: WinXP SP3 32-bit, LP 2.13.3, LPT 2.12.869, on Intel C2D E9600 (2.8GHz), 2 GB RAM 5 min 38 seconds. A bit slower than the Linux times others got. I do have a Vista machine at home (wife's PC) I could check it on if someone is interested, but I'd have to update the LP to make it meaningful. Tim Reeves ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Am Donnerstag, 3. September 2009 schrieb Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool): > Please don't start this discussion :) Then how about a discussion about top posting? ;-) ;-) *duckandhide* -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' What do you call a dead bee? - A was. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Please don't start this discussion :) Pierre Couderc wrote: Mmm, It may be too that linux applications are by nature of the OS quicker than Windows ones... Tim McNamara a écrit : On Sep 3, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Nick Payne wrote: So it looks as though, for any sort of substantial score, turnaround time will be markedly reduced by using 64-bit Linux. Thanks for all the comparisons, Nick, that was very interesting. If I understand the history of LilyPond correctly, it is a Linux application ported to Windows and OS X. So it's not surprising that it's faster on the various Linux OSes. Maybe someday I'll get around to buying an Intel Mac and can install all three OSes on their own partitions and do a comparison that way. I use LilyPond on a 1.33 gHz PPC iBook with 1 GB RAM, called from Carbon Emacs (GNU Emacs 22.2.1 (powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0, Carbon Version 1.6.0)) and while LP is no speed demon, there are a *lot* of calculations and processes happening and I don't expect a score to be rendered in 3 seconds. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Mmm, It may be too that linux applications are by nature of the OS quicker than Windows ones... Tim McNamara a écrit : On Sep 3, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Nick Payne wrote: So it looks as though, for any sort of substantial score, turnaround time will be markedly reduced by using 64-bit Linux. Thanks for all the comparisons, Nick, that was very interesting. If I understand the history of LilyPond correctly, it is a Linux application ported to Windows and OS X. So it's not surprising that it's faster on the various Linux OSes. Maybe someday I'll get around to buying an Intel Mac and can install all three OSes on their own partitions and do a comparison that way. I use LilyPond on a 1.33 gHz PPC iBook with 1 GB RAM, called from Carbon Emacs (GNU Emacs 22.2.1 (powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0, Carbon Version 1.6.0)) and while LP is no speed demon, there are a *lot* of calculations and processes happening and I don't expect a score to be rendered in 3 seconds. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Sep 3, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Nick Payne wrote: So it looks as though, for any sort of substantial score, turnaround time will be markedly reduced by using 64-bit Linux. Thanks for all the comparisons, Nick, that was very interesting. If I understand the history of LilyPond correctly, it is a Linux application ported to Windows and OS X. So it's not surprising that it's faster on the various Linux OSes. Maybe someday I'll get around to buying an Intel Mac and can install all three OSes on their own partitions and do a comparison that way. I use LilyPond on a 1.33 gHz PPC iBook with 1 GB RAM, called from Carbon Emacs (GNU Emacs 22.2.1 (powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0, Carbon Version 1.6.0)) and while LP is no speed demon, there are a *lot* of calculations and processes happening and I don't expect a score to be rendered in 3 seconds. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Lilypond Speed
> -Original Message- > From: lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org > [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org] On > Behalf Of Nick Payne > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 7:02 PM > Cc: 'lilypond' > Subject: RE: Lilypond Speed > > > -Original Message- > > From: lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org > > [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org] On > > Behalf Of Michael David Crawford > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 1:39 AM > > Cc: lilypond > > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > > > > It would be interesting to see what the performance is on different > > operating systems, but running on the exact same hardware. > > > Ask and it shall be done. I took the opportunity while testing builds > of Win2008 x86 and x64 to install LP and run the same test. I found the > results rather surprising. All tests (building Reubke's sonata on the > 94th psalm using LP 2.13.3) conducted on the same machine: > > Debian 4 amd64: 4min 4sec > > Win2008 SP2 x64: 5min 58sec > > Win2008 SP2 x86: 6m 3sec > > That's quite a substantial performance hit for the Windows version > compared to Linux. I don't have a server build of x86 Linux but if I > get the chance tomorrow I'll see if Ubuntu 9.04 x86 has the Perc > drivers needed to install on the server and run the test with that. > More timings (build of same score, same machine): Ubuntu 9.04 x86: 5min 25sec Ubuntu 9.04 amd64: 4min 1sec So it looks as though, for any sort of substantial score, turnaround time will be markedly reduced by using 64-bit Linux. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Lilypond Speed
> -Original Message- > From: lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org > [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org] On > Behalf Of Michael David Crawford > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 1:39 AM > Cc: lilypond > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > > It would be interesting to see what the performance is on different > operating systems, but running on the exact same hardware. > Ask and it shall be done. I took the opportunity while testing builds of Win2008 x86 and x64 to install LP and run the same test. I found the results rather surprising. All tests (building Reubke's sonata on the 94th psalm using LP 2.13.3) conducted on the same machine: Debian 4 amd64: 4min 4sec Win2008 SP2 x64: 5min 58sec Win2008 SP2 x86: 6m 3sec That's quite a substantial performance hit for the Windows version compared to Linux. I don't have a server build of x86 Linux but if I get the chance tomorrow I'll see if Ubuntu 9.04 x86 has the Perc drivers needed to install on the server and run the test with that. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: While LilyPond may be single threaded, in general the underlying operating system is multithreaded. It might be the case that a system call LilyPond depends on can get executed in a multithreaded way. LilyPond almost does not interact with the OS except for reading and writing a couple of files. It's CPU bound. That may be true, but it also places a load on the system in ways that aren't obvious. For example the virtual memory system, paging in executable code, mapping shared libraries. It was mentioned that LilyPond uses a lot of stack. The stack is extended automatically on most VM systems - when you try to access a region of stack memory that's not mapped, there is a page fault, and the page fault handler creates the necessary mapping. It would be interesting to see what the performance is on different operating systems, but running on the exact same hardware. -- Michael David Crawford mich...@geometricvisions.com http://www.geometricvisions.com/ <-- Creative Commons LilyPond Scores ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Michael David Crawford wrote: > > > Peter Chubb wrote: >> >> Han-Wen> More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number >> Han-Wen> of cores is irrelevant. > > While LilyPond may be single threaded, in general the underlying operating > system is multithreaded. It might be the case that a system call LilyPond > depends on can get executed in a multithreaded way. LilyPond almost does not interact with the OS except for reading and writing a couple of files. It's CPU bound. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Peter Chubb wrote: Han-Wen> More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number Han-Wen> of cores is irrelevant. While LilyPond may be single threaded, in general the underlying operating system is multithreaded. It might be the case that a system call LilyPond depends on can get executed in a multithreaded way. -- Michael David Crawford mich...@geometricvisions.com http://www.geometricvisions.com/ <-- Creative Commons Lilypond Scores ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
> "Han-Wen" == Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: Han-Wen> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Peter Han-Wen> Chubb wrote: >> I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, >> and amount of RAM. Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends >> to have quite a deep stack, and to use lots of memory --- which it >> visits in what looks to the processor like random orders --- so >> small caches generate lots of cache misses, which slows things >> down. If you run out of RAM and have to swap, things get even >> worse. Han-Wen> More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number Han-Wen> of cores is irrelevant. That doesn't explain why going from the Core Duo to the Xeon dropped the time from 11 minutes to 4 minutes. The reason, as I said, is the increased cache size. -- Dr Peter Chubb www.nicta.com.aupeter DOT chubb AT nicta.com.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Peter Chubb wrote: > I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, > and amount of RAM. Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends to > have quite a deep stack, and to use lots of memory --- which it > visits in what looks to the processor like random orders --- so small > caches generate lots of cache misses, which slows things down. If you > run out of RAM and have to swap, things get even worse. More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number of cores is irrelevant. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
> "Nick" == Nick Payne writes: Nick> As I have just had a rather powerful evaluation server to play Nick> around with for a few days while I tested our various Windows Nick> and Linux server builds on it, I thought I'd also take the Nick> opportunity to compare the build speed of a reasonably Nick> substantial score. I used Reinhold's setting of Reubke's sonata Nick> on the 94th psalm. I tested on three machines, all running the Nick> same version of Lilypond: Nick> 1. Dell GX620 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.0GHz CPU, Nick>1Gb RAM, Ubuntu 9.04 x86: 10min 11sec Nick> 2. Dell GX745 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.4GHz CPU, Nick>2Gb RAM, WinXP SP3: 9min 22sec Nick> 3. PowerEdge R710 server, dual quad-core Xeon 5560 2.8GHz CPUs, Nick>24Gb RAM, Debian 5 amd64: 4min 4sec I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, and amount of RAM. Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends to have quite a deep stack, and to use lots of memory --- which it visits in what looks to the processor like random orders --- so small caches generate lots of cache misses, which slows things down. If you run out of RAM and have to swap, things get even worse. Xeon 5560: 256k L2, 8M L3 cache (which is almost as fast as the Pentium D's L2 cache) Pentium D: 1M L2 cache, no L3 cache. -- Dr Peter Chubb www.nicta.com.aupeter DOT chubb AT nicta.com.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
As I have just had a rather powerful evaluation server to play around with for a few days while I tested our various Windows and Linux server builds on it, I thought I'd also take the opportunity to compare the build speed of a reasonably substantial score. I used Reinhold's setting of Reubke's sonata on the 94th psalm. I tested on three machines, all running the same version of Lilypond: 1. Dell GX620 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.0GHz CPU, 1Gb RAM, Ubuntu 9.04 x86: 10min 11sec 2. Dell GX745 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.4GHz CPU, 2Gb RAM, WinXP SP3: 9min 22sec 3. PowerEdge R710 server, dual quad-core Xeon 5560 2.8GHz CPUs, 24Gb RAM, Debian 5 amd64: 4min 4sec Number of CPUs seemed irrelevant as only a single CPU was getting flogged on each machine while the build was in progress. I saw pretty much the same percentage difference in build time on shorter scores as well - eg a four page score built in 16sec on the GX620 workstation and 8sec on the server. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > From: Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > To: "Jonathan Wilkes" > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 6:40 AM > Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > > It sounds like there is a wide discrepancy depending > on machine/os/etc. > > Does anyone have any insight into how I could decrease > this time on my winxp machine? > > > > I feel like if I could get it down to something close > to one second, it would be a lot easier to learn Lilypond. > > > > Also: is there a way using LilypondTool to set > Lilypond to run every time I enter a barcheck? > > > Sure, as you can set a shortcut for running LilyPond, see > Utilities>Global options>Shortcuts, you can set the > shortcut to be | > > Bert Ah, of course. Thanks a lot, Bert. -Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Jonathan Wilkes wrote: It sounds like there is a wide discrepancy depending on machine/os/etc. Does anyone have any insight into how I could decrease this time on my winxp machine? I feel like if I could get it down to something close to one second, it would be a lot easier to learn Lilypond. Also: is there a way using LilypondTool to set Lilypond to run every time I enter a barcheck? Sure, as you can set a shortcut for running LilyPond, see Utilities>Global options>Shortcuts, you can set the shortcut to be | Bert ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond Speed (Jonathan Wilkes)
Dear Jonathan, It takes me 11 seconds the first time, 4 seconds without a version number and 3 seconds with a version number. AMD Sempron 2500+ 1.4 GHz, 448MB of RAM Physical Address Extension Windows XP Professional Fred ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Am Freitag, 28. August 2009 schrieb Jonathan Wilkes: > It sounds like there is a wide discrepancy depending on machine/os/etc. > > Does anyone have any insight into how I could decrease this time on my > winxp machine? Half way through reading that sentence I wanted to say "install Linux". *d&h* -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' LOL, you said ROFL. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Hello,
I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the
following simple score:
\relative c' {
c4 d e fis
}
I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes
7 seconds to complete, whether I do it on the command line or in
LilypondTool.
-Jonathan
Using LilypondTool, the first time I compiled it took 27 seconds (!), then
I added the version statement (based on someone else's comment that it
became shorter) and it took 0 seconds (that was the console output - I
don't know how to get a more precise time - I would assume that means <0.5
sec) and then I removed the version statement and it took 0 seconds again.
LP 2.13.3, LPT 2.12.869, WinXP SP3, Core2Duo 2.8GHz, 2GB RAM.
Tim Reeves
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Wilbert Berendsen wrote:
on a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7400 @ 2.80GHz :
wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ echo "\\relative c' { c4 d e fis }" > test.ly
wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ time lilypond test
ok, this is the command I was looking for..
so...
on a Intel Core2Duo T7500 @ 2.20GHz with 2GB ram (Ubuntu)
f...@fede-laptop:/tmp$ time lilypond speed.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.13.3
Processing `speed.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages]
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `speed.ps'...
Converting to `./speed.pdf'...
real0m1.021s
user0m0.881s
sys 0m0.099s
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
It sounds like there is a wide discrepancy depending on machine/os/etc. Does anyone have any insight into how I could decrease this time on my winxp machine? I feel like if I could get it down to something close to one second, it would be a lot easier to learn Lilypond. Also: is there a way using LilypondTool to set Lilypond to run every time I enter a barcheck? Thanks, Jonathan --- On Fri, 8/28/09, Thomas Scharkowski wrote: > From: Thomas Scharkowski > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org, "Jonathan Wilkes" > Date: Friday, August 28, 2009, 8:59 PM > I'm sure it is a little more, but not > much ;-) > > Thomas > Intel E6750 @ 2.66Ghz, 2 GM RAM > Windows Xp SP3, LilyPondTool > > -- > Processing `C:/LilyPondFiles/test/time.ly' > Parsing... > Interpreting music... > Preprocessing graphical objects... > Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages] > Drawing systems... > Layout output to `time.ps'... > Converting to `./time.pdf'... > Processing time: 0 seconds > > > LilyPond ready. > > -- > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Op vrijdag 28 augustus 2009, schreef Federico Bruni: > Frescobaldi does not give me timing information. I just implemented this in SVN! ;-) best regards, Wilbert Berendsen -- Frescobaldi, LilyPond editor for KDE: http://www.frescobaldi.org/ Nederlands LilyPond forum: http://www.lilypondforum.nl/ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
I'm sure it is a little more, but not much ;-) Thomas Intel E6750 @ 2.66Ghz, 2 GM RAM Windows Xp SP3, LilyPondTool -- Processing `C:/LilyPondFiles/test/time.ly' Parsing... Interpreting music... Preprocessing graphical objects... Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages] Drawing systems... Layout output to `time.ps'... Converting to `./time.pdf'... Processing time: 0 seconds LilyPond ready. -- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Jonathan Wilkes Friday, August 28, 2009 5:45 PM
Hello,
I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond
on the
following simple score:
\relative c' {
c4 d e fis
}
I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it
consistently takes
7 seconds to complete, whether I do it on the command line or in
LilypondTool.
3.5 secs on 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo with 2Gb DDR2
running Windows Vista Home Premium, from start
to end of converting to pdf. This is the
time after the first run, which took c. 10 secs,
due to having to page-in/load the software (I
had around 12 windows open at the time and hadn't
run LilyPond recently).
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
on a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7400 @ 2.80GHz :
wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ echo "\\relative c' { c4 d e fis }" > test.ly
wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ time lilypond test
GNU LilyPond 2.13.1
Verwerken van `test.ly'
Ontleden...
test.ly:0: warning: geen \version uitdrukking gevonden, voeg
\version "2.13.1"
toe voor toekomstige compatibiliteit
Vertolken van muziek...
Voorbewerken van grafische objecten...
Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages]
Tekenen van systemen...
Opmaakuitvoer naar `test.ps'...
Converteren naar `./test.pdf'...
real0m0.695s
user0m0.612s
sys 0m0.064s
best regards,
Wilbert Berendsen
--
Frescobaldi, LilyPond editor for KDE: http://www.frescobaldi.org/
Nederlands LilyPond forum: http://www.lilypondforum.nl/
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Am Freitag, 28. August 2009 schrieb Jonathan Wilkes:
> Hello,
> I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the
> following simple score:
>
> \relative c' {
> c4 d e fis
> }
>
> I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes
> 7 seconds to complete, whether I do it on the command line or in
> LilypondTool.
Core2Duo T7200 at 1GHz:
Creating a PS:
real0m1.502s
user0m1.418s
sys 0m0.073s
Creating a PDF:
real0m1.808s
user0m1.644s
sys 0m0.138s
And at 2GHz:
Creating a PS:
real0m0.810s
user0m0.763s
sys 0m0.040s
Creating a PDF:
real0m0.973s
user0m0.879s
sys 0m0.083s
(all values +/- 20ms)
Have you tried right after booting into Windows? It is known to have a faible
for swapping here and there even if the RAM isn't filled up yet.
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
Windows: reboot. Linux: be root.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On 28.08.2009, at 19:35, Federico Bruni wrote: Jethro Van Thuyne wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: It took me 4,474 seconds How can you be so precise? :-) OSX has a time command that can be run from the command line and will output the timing of the process that follows it. I learned that because of this query. James E. Bailey ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
It took me 4,474 seconds on Debian, Intel Core2Duo T7250 @ 2.00GHz with 2GB ram. And with a version statement it takes 0,941 seconds... Jethro. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Hi Jonathan,
I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the
following simple score:
\relative c' {
c4 d e fis
}
About 1.5 seconds on my MacBook 667GHz G5 w/1GB RAM.
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Jethro Van Thuyne wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: It took me 4,474 seconds How can you be so precise? :-) Frescobaldi does not give me timing information. If I type in a terminal lilypond -V file.ly the only information about timing is: elapsed time: 0.01 seconds It seems too much fast, anyway it's within 1 second. Ubuntu, Intel Core2Duo T7500 @ 2.20GHz with 2GB ram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On 28.08.2009, at 18:45, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Hello,
I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond
on the
following simple score:
\relative c' {
c4 d e fis
}
I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently
takes
7 seconds to complete, whether I do it on the command line or in
LilypondTool.
-Jonathan
Using time on osx 10.4.11 I get:
with generating the pdf:
real0m1.482s
user0m1.206s
sys 0m0.255s
just generating a ps:
real0m1.307s
user0m1.091s
sys 0m0.201s
James E. Bailey
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: It took me 4,474 seconds on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram on Debian, Intel Core2Duo T7250 @ 2.00GHz with 2GB ram. Jethro. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond Speed
Hello,
I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the
following simple score:
\relative c' {
c4 d e fis
}
I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes
7 seconds to complete, whether I do it on the command line or in
LilypondTool.
-Jonathan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond speed
2009/8/4 Graham Percival : > Why do people never believe me when I say that there's tons of > cool stuff we /could/ do, if only more people helped out? That's not my point. My point is to make sure that nothing potentially cool gets lost. > Of course, there's no point writing the sequel until the first one > is published. Good to see you're still in good shape :) Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond speed
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:42:15PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > 2009/8/4 Graham Percival : > > There you go: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2005-11/msg00024.html > > This is huge! (I suspect I wasn't subscribed to -devel when this was > posted, otherwise I'd have noticed it). > > Even though there's clearly no magic recipe to speed up LilyPond > (except multi-threading, but we're nowhere near implementing it), the > server approach could be very, very useful for all kind of purposes. Why do people never believe me when I say that there's tons of cool stuff we /could/ do, if only more people helped out? If the website was finished earlier (i.e. if people contributed content), then I'd have worked on this during the summer. If more people helped out, we could have a much better set of "safe" lilypond commands. The above two points would let us run multi-threaded web-available lilypond servers for doing multiple small snippets at once. If more people helped out, we could have started+finished GLISS already, and have a stable syntax (for the commands). If more people helped out, we might actually have a *decreasing* list of issues. There are tons of cool stuff we /could/ do. In my idle moments, I make plans of how it would be organized, how the overall work structure would go, etc. But there's no point trying to do cool stuff unless the foundation is solid. We need more people working on those foundations. Cheers, - Graham PS yes, I was planning on writing an article about all the cool stuff we *could* be doing, if only people helped out with the mundane/routine jobs, as a continuation of my Report contribution. Of course, there's no point writing the sequel until the first one is published. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond speed
2009/8/4 Graham Percival : > There you go: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2005-11/msg00024.html This is huge! (I suspect I wasn't subscribed to -devel when this was posted, otherwise I'd have noticed it). Even though there's clearly no magic recipe to speed up LilyPond (except multi-threading, but we're nowhere near implementing it), the server approach could be very, very useful for all kind of purposes. Is there a way to post this to the LSR? (this is where the newly-added "devel" tag might be useful...) Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond speed
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:19 AM, hernan wrote: > My main frustration with Lilypond is speed. In my setup (Win-XP, P4 3.0Ghz, 1G > ram) to process a fairly simple scoresheet (2 or 3 pages) it takes about 8 > seconds. That might not seem a great deal, but it is really annoying when one > is > doing lots of retouching (edit one bit, compile, see results, edit again... > etc) > > Is there some recipe to speed things up? Are the performance bottlenecks > identified? > > I read in the main.cc source that the GUILE start-up is very time consumming. > I > wonder if some modification in the code could be done so that the GUILE > startup > occurs once for several compilation cycles, something as (pseudocode) The startup time consumed by GUILE is less than 0.5 second. This will not really make a dent in the processing time. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond speed
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:10:18PM -0300, hernan gonzalez wrote: > >> I read in the main.cc source that the GUILE start-up is very time > >> consumming. I > >> wonder if some modification in the code could be done so that the GUILE > >> startup > >> occurs once for several compilation cycles, something as (pseudocode) > > > > Yes, that's been done with the lilypond server. Search the > > lilypond-devel mailist for details. > > Well, I've been searching, but I've found nothing relevant... There you go: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2005-11/msg00024.html > Any other hint or pointer ? I'd guessed that this is a relevant issue > for the typical lilypond user. No, it's not relevant for the typical lilypond user. We'd need at least 20 hours of programming until this became relevant for the typical lilypond user. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond speed
>> I read in the main.cc source that the GUILE start-up is very time >> consumming. I >> wonder if some modification in the code could be done so that the GUILE >> startup >> occurs once for several compilation cycles, something as (pseudocode) > > Yes, that's been done with the lilypond server. Search the > lilypond-devel mailist for details. > Well, I've been searching, but I've found nothing relevant... http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=lilypond-devel%40gnu.org&q=guile+server ... just some mention (from yourself) telling this same advice (search the mailing lists)... http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-de...@gnu.org/msg22084.html About "lilypond server" I only found some scattered references to running in a web server (and some about the "jail" options and related stuff), but no mention about what interest me, a way of run the lilypond executable (desktop mode) and keep it running, over the same files in a loop. Peeking into the sources, I see that it can't easily been done from the main C entry point, because the main scm module does not return to the caller, but instead does a hard exit. Could (should?) this be changed ? Any other hint or pointer ? I'd guessed that this is a relevant issue for the typical lilypond user. Best regards. Hernán J. González http://hjg.com.ar/ghibli/musica/ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond speed
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:19:28AM +, hernan wrote: > Is there some recipe to speed things up? Are the performance bottlenecks > identified? There are some minor tweaks you can do. I think they're currently listed in LM 5. "Speeding up typesetting" or something like that. > I read in the main.cc source that the GUILE start-up is very time consumming. > I > wonder if some modification in the code could be done so that the GUILE > startup > occurs once for several compilation cycles, something as (pseudocode) Yes, that's been done with the lilypond server. Search the lilypond-devel mailist for details. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond speed
My main frustration with Lilypond is speed. In my setup (Win-XP, P4 3.0Ghz, 1G
ram) to process a fairly simple scoresheet (2 or 3 pages) it takes about 8
seconds. That might not seem a great deal, but it is really annoying when one is
doing lots of retouching (edit one bit, compile, see results, edit again...
etc)
Is there some recipe to speed things up? Are the performance bottlenecks
identified?
I read in the main.cc source that the GUILE start-up is very time consumming. I
wonder if some modification in the code could be done so that the GUILE startup
occurs once for several compilation cycles, something as (pseudocode)
main() {
DO_GUILE_START_UP();
do {
COMPILE_FILES()
PROMPT("PRESS 'E' TO END, 'R' TO RECOMPILE THE SAME FILE/S")
} while (GETCHAR()=='R');
exit(0);
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond speed on Windows/Linux
FYI: I have tested LilyPond 2.7.18 on Windows XP and Kanotix/Debian, same box (quite old), same file, same HD, both with jEdit: Windows: 52 seconds Linux: 27 seconds Thomas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
On 09/12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Roman V. Isaev wrote: > > > > Well, I have it both ways. It's slow if I use cygwin, it's slow > >if I run it from cmd.exe prompt or drag a .ly file on its icon. > That's not the question. My question is whether you're using the > "Native" 2.6 binary (available from lilypond.org/web/install/ for the > "windows" platform). Yes. And it was slow when it was 2.5.x. -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.gunlab.com.ru Moscow, Russia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
On some configuration I found that "initializing fontconfig" can take very much time, even if there are not many fonts. Bert ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
On 09/12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > >>> Well, I have it both ways. It's slow if I use cygwin, it's slow > >>>if I run it from cmd.exe prompt or drag a .ly file on its icon. > >>That's not the question. My question is whether you're using the > >>"Native" 2.6 binary (available from lilypond.org/web/install/ for the > >>"windows" platform). > if you run > lilypond --verbose > is there a place where it seems to hang? Ugh... it's a problem to get that output. Remember I wrote about being unable to get stdout output in 2.5.x? Well, this problem persists in 2.6.0. Anyway if I do tail -f moon.log (source moon.ly) in other window every string appears after delay. One string, delay... another string, delay... etc. But I think moon.log output is buffered, so it's no help in debugging. BTW, it takes several seconds before moon.log is created, about half of the whole run. I erased moon.log and compiled it again and it took 18 seconds total and during first 8 seconds moon.log wasn't even created. The file is simple, one-page (and the problem exists when I compile any file, simple or complicated). $ time lily.sh --verbose --pdf --png moon.ly real0m18.177s user0m0.050s sys 0m0.060s After about 7-8 seconds of waiting during the run I get this output in another window: $ tail -f moon.log # -*-compilation-*- Processing `moon.ly' Parsing...[j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/init.ly[j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilyp ond/2.6.0/ly/declarations-init.ly[j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/music-functi ons-init.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/nederlands.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/sh are/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/drumpitch-init.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/chord -modifiers-init.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/script-init.ly][j:/lilypon d/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/scale-definitions-init.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypon d/2.6.0/ly/grace-init.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/midi-init.ly[j:/lily pond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/performer-init.ly]][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2. 6.0/ly/paper-defaults.ly[j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/titling-init.ly]][j:/ lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/engraver-init.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/ 2.6.0/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/spanners-ini t.ly][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ly/property-init.ly]][moon.ly[copyright.ly] ] Interpreting music... [j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/otf/emmentaler-20.ot f][8][16][24][29] elapsed time: 0.88 seconds Element count 939 (spanners 48) Preprocessing graphical objects... Grob count 1599[j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/otf/emmentaler-11.otf][j:/l ilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/otf/emmentaler-13.otf][j:/lilypond/usr/share/li lypond/2.6.0/fonts/otf/emmentaler-14.otf][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/o tf/emmentaler-16.otf][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/otf/emmentaler-18.otf ][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/otf/emmentaler-23.otf][j:/lilypond/usr/sh are/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/otf/emmentaler-26.otf] Calculating line breaks... Global shortest duration is 1/8 [feta-alphabet26_9.13671875][century_schoolbook_l__bold_5.0244140625][3][6][9][12][15] [18][21][24][27] Optimal demerits: 5.055508 Element count 974.[0][[century_schoolbook_l__3.98828125]1][2][3][[feta-alphabet16_5.75 68359375]4][century_schoolbook_l__bold_7.9765625][century_schoolbook_l__bold_5.6396484 375][century_schoolbook_l__5.0244140625] Calculating page breaks... Layout output to `moon.ps'...[j:/lilypond/usr/share/gs/fonts/c059016l.pfb][j:/lilypond /usr/share/gs/fonts/c059013l.pfb][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/type1/PFA emmentaler-26.pfa][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/type1/feta-alphabet16.pf a][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/fonts/type1/feta-alphabet26.pfa][j:/lilypond/u sr/share/lilypond/2.6.0/ps/music-drawing-routines.ps][j:/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/2 .6.0/ps/lilyponddefs.ps] Converting to `moon.pdf'... Invoking `gs-dCompatibilityLevel#1.4 -sPAPERSIZE#"a4" -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -r1200 - sDEVICE#pdfwrite -sOutputFile#"moon.pdf" -c .setpdfwrite -f "moon.ps"'... Converting to PNG...] If I run 2.6.0 with nonexistant file as input file, it takes 8 seconds before it opens lilypad window with "warning: can't find file: `nonexistant.ly'" $ time lily.sh --verbose --pdf --png nonexistant.ly real0m8.153s user0m0.050s sys 0m0.070s (I just closed lilypad window as soon as it came up). PDF and PNG conversions (two dos windows) run very quickly at the end. -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.soprano-recorder.ru Moscow, Russia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
Roman V. Isaev wrote: On 09/12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Well, I have it both ways. It's slow if I use cygwin, it's slow if I run it from cmd.exe prompt or drag a .ly file on its icon. That's not the question. My question is whether you're using the "Native" 2.6 binary (available from lilypond.org/web/install/ for the "windows" platform). if you run lilypond --verbose is there a place where it seems to hang? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
On 09/12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > Well, I have it both ways. It's slow if I use cygwin, it's slow > >if I run it from cmd.exe prompt or drag a .ly file on its icon. > That's not the question. My question is whether you're using the > "Native" 2.6 binary (available from lilypond.org/web/install/ for the > "windows" platform). Yes. And it was slow when it was 2.5.x. Moderators, please, don't approve my previous message that I sent from wrong account. -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.soprano-recorder.ru Moscow, Russia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
Roman V. Isaev wrote: Well, I have it both ways. It's slow if I use cygwin, it's slow if I run it from cmd.exe prompt or drag a .ly file on its icon. That's not the question. My question is whether you're using the "Native" 2.6 binary (available from lilypond.org/web/install/ for the "windows" platform). -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
On 09/12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > Why lilypond on windows is VERY slow?! It takes almost 30 seconds to > > complete > >something that compiles in less than a second on Fedora Core 4... I'm > >shocked. > >For some reasons I can't use Fedora at home and it's very annoying to wait > >so > >much for a little correction :( I thought lilypond is slow by design, but > >when I installed FC4 at work and decided to try unix version I was truly > >shocked... > >The difference between windows and unix computer's hardware does exist, > >but certainly > >it's not an order of 100 times > Are you using Cygwin? Well, I have it both ways. It's slow if I use cygwin, it's slow if I run it from cmd.exe prompt or drag a .ly file on its icon. > Do you have many fonts? Nope. Only standard fonts that come with WinXP pro. > The difference in speed between the mingw and FC binaries should be neglible. How to find this bottleneck? -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.soprano-recorder.ru Moscow, Russia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond speed
Roman V. Isaev wrote: Why lilypond on windows is VERY slow?! It takes almost 30 seconds to complete something that compiles in less than a second on Fedora Core 4... I'm shocked. For some reasons I can't use Fedora at home and it's very annoying to wait so much for a little correction :( I thought lilypond is slow by design, but when I installed FC4 at work and decided to try unix version I was truly shocked... The difference between windows and unix computer's hardware does exist, but certainly it's not an order of 100 times Are you using Cygwin? Do you have many fonts? The difference in speed between the mingw and FC binaries should be neglible. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
lilypond speed
Why lilypond on windows is VERY slow?! It takes almost 30 seconds to complete something that compiles in less than a second on Fedora Core 4... I'm shocked. For some reasons I can't use Fedora at home and it's very annoying to wait so much for a little correction :( I thought lilypond is slow by design, but when I installed FC4 at work and decided to try unix version I was truly shocked... The difference between windows and unix computer's hardware does exist, but certainly it's not an order of 100 times -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.soprano-recorder.ru Moscow, Russia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
