console vs. rxvt vs. xterm vs. emacs buffer: Output speed

Uli Fahrenberg uli at math.auc.dk
Fri Jul 16 01:49:36 PDT 2004


Just did some interesting measurements. I have a LaTeX file which tends
to become bigger and bigger, so on my Coppermine 500MHz I'm annoyed by
long compilation times. I'm using AUCTeX, which compiles "within" emacs
and sends TeX's outrageously verbous output to an emacs buffer.

Running latex && bibtex &&latex && latex in an emacs buffer takes 20.6
seconds real time with my current size-of-file. Running the same in rxvt
takes only 12.5 seconds! For xterm the number is 25 seconds, and for
console it's 11.1 seconds.

Running latex && bibtex && latex && latex > /dev/null takes also 11.1
seconds.

Lessons learned:
1. Don't compile in an emacs buffer
2. Another good reason to prefer rxvt over xterm
3. Output has an influence on speed; silent programs are faster

As to 3), would anybody happen to know a way to make LaTeX shut up,
other than the somewhat cruel >/dev/null ?

3) might also suggest (hey, there *was* a reference to LFS!) that
running make>log is to prefer over simply make .

uli

-- 
Uli Fahrenberg -- http://www.math.auc.dk/~uli
GETCO 2004 -- http://www.math.auc.dk/~uli/getco04



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list