- 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 mach
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 fe
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
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
_
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 Li
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? :-)
R
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
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(?)
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 Li
--- 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:
> &
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.
W0
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
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
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, turnaro
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.
Th
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
> -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'
&
> -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: L
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
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 multithr
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
> "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
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 processo
> "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
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 son
--- 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:
> &
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
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
li
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*
-
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.
-Jo
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 Cor
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, 20
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/
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...
L
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
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 uitd
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 com
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 comm
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
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.
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 termin
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, whethe
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.
___
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.
-Jon
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 th
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 notice
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
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
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, som
>> 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.
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 m
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, ed
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/mai
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 (availabl
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
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/we
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
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/inst
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
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
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 :(
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
