Trevor Daniels t.daniels at treda.co.uk writes:
Martin Tarenskeen wrote Saturday, April 18, 2015 6:29 PM
Just a wild guess: did anyone on Windows try the same speed comparison
using
the --ps option instead of pdf output?
Just done that. The conversion from ps to pdf takes only a
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:43 PM
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:28 PM
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
The performance of LilyPond 2.19.18 on Windows is _much_ better than
previous versions. Some examples:
Trevor Daniels t.daniels at treda.co.uk writes:
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
The performance of LilyPond 2.19.18 on Windows is _much_ better than
previous versions. Some examples:
A 26 page multi-score piece I've been working on:
2.19.16: 114s to compile
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Paul Morris p...@paulwmorris.com wrote:
Hi Trevor,
On Apr 18, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
But wouldn't this show a speed-up on systems other than Windows?
There are similar speed-ups on macs (see earlier in this thread).
Hi Trevor,
On Apr 18, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
But wouldn't this show a speed-up on systems other than Windows?
There are similar speed-ups on macs (see earlier in this thread). I don’t
think we’ve had anyone corroborate the results on GNU/Linux yet.
Keith OHara k-ohara5a5a at oco.net writes:
Trevor Daniels t.daniels at treda.co.uk writes:
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
The performance of LilyPond 2.19.18 on Windows is _much_ better than
previous versions. Some examples:
On Linux, I see no measurable
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, Paul Morris wrote:
Hi Trevor,
On Apr 18, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
wrote:
But wouldn't this show a speed-up on systems other than Windows?
There are similar speed-ups on macs (see earlier in this thread). I don’t
think we’ve
Am 18.04.2015 um 19:11 schrieb Jay Anderson:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Paul Morris p...@paulwmorris.com wrote:
Hi Trevor,
On Apr 18, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
But wouldn't this show a speed-up on systems other than Windows?
There are similar
Martin Tarenskeen wrote Saturday, April 18, 2015 6:29 PM
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, Paul Morris wrote:
On Apr 18, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
wrote:
But wouldn't this show a speed-up on systems other than Windows?
There are similar speed-ups on macs (see
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:43 PM
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:28 PM
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
The performance of LilyPond 2.19.18 on Windows is _much_ better than
previous versions. Some examples:
Hi Phil,
The point I am making is that you need to reboot the machine between version
runs, to equalize matters such as disk block caching. If you run 2.19.16 and
then 2.19.18 the latter may be using cached data from the former, such as
shared DLL’s already loaded and so on.
Now that you have
The performance of LilyPond 2.19.18 on Windows is _much_ better than
previous versions. Some examples:
A 26 page multi-score piece I've been working on:
2.19.16: 114s to compile
2.19.18: 52s
A 500 bar piece of old music I was working on:
2.19.18: 61.6s
2.19.16: 124.6s
2.19.6: 150.9s
2.18.2:
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
The performance of LilyPond 2.19.18 on Windows is _much_ better than
previous versions. Some examples:
A 26 page multi-score piece I've been working on:
2.19.16: 114s to compile
2.19.18: 52s
... [etc]
That's remarkable. I can see no
- Original Message -
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
To: Phil Holmes philehol...@googlemail.com; LilyPond User Group
lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Windows performance
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
On Apr 16, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Phil Holmes philehol...@googlemail.com wrote:
A simple stress test:
\repeat unfold 900 {
c''4 c' c c,
}
I tried this simple test on my mac and got similar results! (Three runs for
each version.)
2.18.2:41.1 40.2 41.5
2.19.16: 38.9 38.1 38.6
:
- Original Message -
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
To: Phil Holmes philehol...@googlemail.com; LilyPond User Group
lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Windows performance
Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
--
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
below:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Windows-performance-tp174601p174607.html
To start a new topic under User, email ml-node+s1069038n...@n5.nabble.com
To unsubscribe from Lilypond, click here
...@philholmes.net:
- Original Message - From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.ukTo:
Phil Holmes philehol...@googlemail.com; LilyPond User Group
lilypond-user@gnu.orgSent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:28 PMSubject: Re:
Windows performance Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:28:35 +0100
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
To: Phil Holmes philehol...@googlemail.com, LilyPond User Group
lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Windows performance
Message-ID:
assp.154812a152.24D5F6F494F544389C536A4DA2947FBB
Hello Phil,
As an IT specialist who used to do large scale performance tuning of big
UNIX systems, let me add two A$ cents worth.
Modern operating systems cache a lot of objects in memory. When a program
is first run it can take much longer than the next time since disk blocks
have to be loaded
20 matches
Mail list logo
