On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:28:14 -0500 Jan Hlavacek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:03:48AM +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:30:56 +0100 > > Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > At 09:36 PM 11/7/2002 +0100, Jens-Uwe Morawski wrote: > > > >gnome-terminal: 2 min 18 sec > > > >konsole (KDE-terminal): 1 min 30 sec > > > >xterm: 1 min 5 sec > > > >directly on the console > > > > (no X-Windows): 58 sec > > > > > > > >Don't ask me for reasons, but if your ConTeXt is too > > > >slow, ask yourself if you run it on the right terminal -) > > > > > > maybe no ls-R file is found and consulted, resulting in a full scan of the > > > texmf file structure. > > > > No, no. TeX finds its files very fast. I could improve that with a smaller > > texmf-tree, but 1+ min for the job is IMO okay; it runs 3xConTeXt, > > 2xTeXUtil and 2xMetaPost. The problem is the terminal program. It seems > > that the drawing of those many messages on the terminal needs much time. > > If i use a slow terminal, i.e. gnome-terminal, then the runtime increases. > Did you try to run context with output redirected to a file? How long > does that take? > > try texexec yourfile.tex > logfile ahh, interesting idea. Now it is independent from the used terminal and a run needs about 50 seconds. Jens _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
