On mar, 2007-12-04 at 01:17 -0500, A. Costa wrote: > On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:47:19 +0100 > Yves-Alexis Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ...there seems to be two speeds or "gears", low gear 'seq 10000' > > > 6s (=~1800per/sec), high gear 999000 in 19-6=13s (=~.77000p/s). > > > > Note that it may have to do with the number of lines you keep in > > buffer (see terminal preferences). When you first run a command wich > > outputs a lot, the terminal will have to allocate the memory. Then > > it'll reuse the memory already allocated, so it'll be faster. > > My buffer is set to 1000 lines at present... which matches up with the > 'seq 1000'. But if it's a one-time memory allocation delay, then > shouldn't the second run of 'seq' should be faster? It wasn't; the > "two-gear" effect was visible for every run.
Yeah but her I couldn't reproduce at all :) > > Yet tonight, I'm unable to reproduce the "two-gear" effect. Such a > "heisenbug". > > > ...Yet, I don't think it's a bug in terminal wich prevents you to use > > it. This kind of test just stress it a lot but any terminal will be > > more cpu-intensive when a lot of text is outputed fastly. > > Well when first I reported the bug the terminal speed was really slow; > these stress tests were just attempts at reproducing that state. > For sanity's sake I'll take a break for now, maybe some abler user will > bump into it. And don't forget to retry without compositing :) -- Yves-Alexis Perez -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
