On Friday 09 Dec 2005 14:57, D. Michael 'Silvan' McIntyre wrote: > Any difference seems to be negligible. There's variability from run > to run with a spread of about seven seconds, and I don't see a clear > winner emerging. HEAD is faster sometimes, and experiments is faster > sometimes. Both are considerably slower to start if JACK is not > running.
Slower if JACK is _not_ running? > The best speed I saw was six seconds, and I think that was > experiments. The worst speed I saw was 18 seconds, and I think that > was also experiments. Eighteen seconds! For me, with DEBUG enabled and printing to a konsole, HEAD takes about six or seven seconds for the window to appear the first time you run it and about five seconds thereafter. "experiments" takes about five seconds the first time and three or four thereafter. Both are fairly consistent. How long do --nosequencer and --existingsequencer (with an existing sequencer, of course...) take, relatively? Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
