Re: A speed test on Apple's M1 processor

Hello Jonas and Jean, I send you the details privately, not to clutter this list. JM > Le 12 sept. 2022 à 08:20, Jonas Hahnfeld via LilyPond user discussion > a écrit : > > On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 11:52 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote: >> Native lilypond: >> >> jacquesmenu@macmini:/Volumes/JMI_Volum

Re: A speed test on Apple's M1 processor

On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 11:52 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote: > Native lilypond: > > jacquesmenu@macmini:/Volumes/JMI_Volume/JMI_Developpement/lilypond/re > lease/binaries/lilypond/install/bin > time ./lilypond > Fischer_Suite_Sol_M_viola_II_2.23.12.ly Based on the path, did you build with the scripts i

Re: A speed test on Apple's M1 processor

Hi Jacques, Le 11/09/2022 à 11:52, Jacques Menu a écrit : Hello folks, I ran this test with a 7.4Mb, 55 page score, to compare the binaries provided by lilypond.org and the natives ones I (finally) built locally on my 8 Gb RAM Mac Mini. The necessary libraries have been

A speed test on Apple's M1 processor

by a single source. Both versions are 2.23.12. The speed increase is roughly 20 to 25%, thanks to the avoidance of Intel CPU instructions emulation. I will send the test file privately to anyone interested with pleasure, and you can send me larger files for more tests. A nice day! JM -- First

Re: Filtering chunks of the score so to speed up the compiling time

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:39 PM Kieren MacMillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > > In order to speed up the compiling time, I wonder if Lilypond has a > preprocessor that can filter all the parts of the score which aren't marked > by a spec

Re: Filtering chunks of the score so to speed up the compiling time

Hi Paolo, > In order to speed up the compiling time, I wonder if Lilypond has a > preprocessor that can filter all the parts of the score which aren't marked > by a specific tag. Have you looked into: 1. \skipTypesetting <http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/

Filtering chunks of the score so to speed up the compiling time

Hello, In order to speed up the compiling time, I wonder if Lilypond has a preprocessor that can filter all the parts of the score which aren't marked by a specific tag. So, for example, the following code could be compiled only for the chunks included between \START and \END

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

; > lilypond-user@ > > >> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:55 AM >> Subject: Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10 >> >> >> I've tried to reproduce this on my Windows 10 machine using Process >> Monitor to check file operations. I get an init

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

On 2016-09-14 12:07, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: "Anders Eriksson" To: "Knut Petersen" ; "lilypond-user" Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10 I've tried to reproduce this on

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

2016-09-14 12:07 GMT+02:00 Phil Holmes : > - Original Message - From: "Anders Eriksson" > To: "Knut Petersen" ; "lilypond-user" < > lilypond-user@gnu.org> > Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: Version 2.18 vs.2

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

- Original Message - From: "Anders Eriksson" To: "Knut Petersen" ; "lilypond-user" Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10 On 2016-09-11 11:38, Knut Petersen wrote: 2.19.42.1 4.7 2.19

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

Anders Eriksson writes: > On 2016-09-10 22:16, tisimst wrote: >> Just thought I'd add my two cents. I'm using Windows 8 and I only see a small >> speed increase between older versions and 2.19.47. >> >> Using: >> >> \repeat unfold 200 { \tuplet

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

On 2016-09-11 11:38, Knut Petersen wrote: 2.19.42.1 4.7 2.19.43.1 29.8 Don't know how to proceed... Do you use downloaded versions or do you build lilypond from the source code? I downloaded from http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/mingw/ __

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

On 2016-09-10 22:16, tisimst wrote: Just thought I'd add my two cents. I'm using Windows 8 and I only see a small speed increase between older versions and 2.19.47. Using: \repeat unfold 200 { \tuplet 5/4 { c'4 d' e' f' g' } } and compiling in "publish&

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

Just thought I'd add my two cents. I'm using Windows 8 and I only see a small speed increase between older versions and 2.19.47. Using: \repeat unfold 200 { \tuplet 5/4 { c'4 d' e' f' g' } } and compiling in "publish" mode (i.e., no point-and-clic

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

hat caused the extreme reduction in speed, I can confirm that Lilypond on the current version of Windows runs dramatically slower with versions somewhat older than 2.19.47. I also have noticed the the reduction in speed and one thing I have noticed is that every time I compile a .ly file Lilypond

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

updated to the "Anniversary edition". When I ran Lilypond again two days ago, it was 20 times slower. Trying to fix that, I updated Lilypond and Frescobaldi to the newest versions, but that didn't help. So, while I can't tell exactly what caused the extreme reduction in speed, I can c

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

Hi Pierre, the problem has been reported by Mac users, as a change between v2.19.46 and .47, in that now it takes so long on every run instead of only the very first. Presumably because the font cache is always being rebuilt. Maybe it’s the same problem? Best, Simon On 06.09.2016 16:59, Pie

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

38.n5.nabble.com/Version-2-18-vs-2-19-speed-and-W10-tp194256p194257.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

Maybe an simpler compilation: \version "2.18.2" { c' } Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.18.2 [Untitled]... Processing `c:/users/pierre/appdata/local/temp/frescobaldi-zjscau/tmpaf0a6q/ document.ly' Parsing... Interpreting music... Preprocessing graphical objects... Finding the ideal number of pages

Version 2.18 vs.2.19 speed and W10

Hi All, This morning Win10 forced me to do an update which has last more than an hour, and then another one few hours later (15mn "only"). Since then, I have a very long run delay with LP v2.19. For example, the snippet in this thread : http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-MulitMeasureRe

Re: speed

"Phil Holmes" writes: > From the snipped posting, I was assuming this was (an amazingly fast) > compilation of lilypond itself. From your post, I assume it's using > make to have lilypond compile some music. To quote the original posting: On my new notebook the lilypond version of Reubke's

Re: speed

- Original Message - From: "David Kastrup" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:20 PM Subject: Re: speed "Phil Holmes" writes: From: "Knut Petersen" About 4 times slower than your "Ivy Bridge" system. Half of that can be accounted to

Re: speed

"Phil Holmes" writes: > From: "Knut Petersen" >> About 4 times slower than your "Ivy Bridge" system. >> Half of that can be accounted to the doubled clock rate. >> I suspect that a lot of the rest is caused by general >> improvements in cpu architecture. So lilypond seems >> not to scale well w

Re: speed

- Original Message - From: "Knut Petersen" To: "Carlo Stemberger" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:46 AM Subject: Re: speed On 07.02.2013 13:52, Carlo Stemberger wrote: $ time make [...] real0m14.519s user0m14.276s sys0m0.192s i7-3770K (3rd

Re: speed

On 07.02.2013 13:52, Carlo Stemberger wrote: $ time make [...] real0m14.519s user0m14.276s sys0m0.192s i7-3770K (3rd generation), Debian Wheezy. cpu/men: Pentium-M Dothan, 1.86 GHz, 2GB mobo: AOpen i915GMm-HFS os: openSuSE 12.3, kernel 3.9 lilypond: 16.2 time make [...] real

Re: speed

Hi, On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Andrew Bernard wrote: > Greetings, > > On my Linux Mint 14 virtual machine running in Virtualbox on a Macbook Pro > with a 2.4 GHz i7, I get 30 seconds more or less exactly. > > Looks like those i5's are catching up. > > The Reubke seems like quite a good timin

Re: speed

Urs Liska writes: > Am 07.02.2013 13:58, schrieb David Kastrup: >> Carlo Stemberger writes: >> >>> Il 07/02/2013 11:25, Martin Tarenskeen ha scritto: On my new notebook the lilypond version of Reubke's Psalm94 now compiles in 20 seconds (including creation of zip package) instead

Re: speed

Am 07.02.2013 13:58, schrieb David Kastrup: Carlo Stemberger writes: Il 07/02/2013 11:25, Martin Tarenskeen ha scritto: On my new notebook the lilypond version of Reubke's Psalm94 now compiles in 20 seconds (including creation of zip package) instead of 100. (3rd generation i5 processor) $

Re: speed

Il 07/02/2013 13:58, David Kastrup ha scritto: I am assuming you are not talking about building LilyPond here. :D No, I'm talking about compiling this files: http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/177628 Ciao! Carlo -- .-. | Registered Linux User #443882|

Re: speed

Carlo Stemberger writes: > Il 07/02/2013 11:25, Martin Tarenskeen ha scritto: >> >> On my new notebook the lilypond version of Reubke's Psalm94 now >> compiles in 20 seconds (including creation of zip package) instead >> of 100. (3rd generation i5 processor) >> > > $ time make > > [...] > > real

Re: speed

Il 07/02/2013 11:25, Martin Tarenskeen ha scritto: On my new notebook the lilypond version of Reubke's Psalm94 now compiles in 20 seconds (including creation of zip package) instead of 100. (3rd generation i5 processor) $ time make [...] real0m14.519s user0m14.276s sys0m0.192

Re: speed

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Andrew Bernard wrote: Greetings, On my Linux Mint 14 virtual machine running in Virtualbox on a Macbook Pro with a 2.4 GHz i7, I get 30 seconds more or less exactly. Looks like those i5's are catching up. I guess VirtualBox is also slowing things down a bit? What if y

Re: speed

Greetings, On my Linux Mint 14 virtual machine running in Virtualbox on a Macbook Pro with a 2.4 GHz i7, I get 30 seconds more or less exactly. Looks like those i5's are catching up. The Reubke seems like quite a good timing benchmark. And what a wonderful piece of engraving. cheerio! Andr

speed

Hi, It was time to buy myself a newer notebook. My Dell D600 is beginning to fall apart. On my new notebook the lilypond version of Reubke's Psalm94 now compiles in 20 seconds (including creation of zip package) instead of 100. (3rd generation i5 processor) :-) -- MT __

Re: lilypond speed

- Original Message - From: "Martin Tarenskeen" To: "lilypond-user mailinglist" Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:42 AM Subject: lilypond speed Some day soon my still reliable but not very fast 10 year old laptop will have to be replaced by a more modern mach

Re: lilypond speed

I was thinkig about that too. Parallelization in Lilypond can be possible. Imagine rendering one page in each core in parallel, or one system for each core. Also other kinds of optimizations for 'preview' modes, where you need more speed then optimal quality? Maybe improved performanc

Re: lilypond speed

On a Mac, speed increase from a Core2Duo to a Corei5 is really noticeable, about 40% faster. I guess this is about the same on Windows or Linux. I think you'll see a huge difference. :) Philippe -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/lilypond-speed-tp30929720p30929766.html

lilypond speed

Some day soon my still reliable but not very fast 10 year old laptop will have to be replaced by a more modern machine. Will Lilypond benifit much if my next computer will have one of those modern multi-core processors like the Intel i3/5/7 ? I'm just curious. -- Martin _

Re: Speed tips, again, for extremely large scores?

ypond Benchmark" webpage, small, >>> interesting, and useless ;-) > > It would be both interesting and a useful check on > whether code additions to new releases have had an > effect on processing speed. Although for this we > would have to establish one or maybe

Re: Speed tips, again, for extremely large scores?

t: I suggest to give te time needed to "make" the (at least in this mailinglist) already famous "Reubke Psalm 94" score. It would be both interesting and a useful check on whether code additions to new releases have had an effect on processing speed. Although for this we w

Re: Speed tips, again, for extremely large scores?

Martin Tarenskeen wrote: On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Michael Kappler wrote: I'm also still very interested if there are possibilities to increase LilyPond performance further. My machine is very slow, though and I cannot speak for many people when raising performance issues. Would it be an idea t

Re: Speed tips, again, for extremely large scores?

with relatively old computers as well as the newest i7 speeddevils ... Lilypond does benifit a lot from this fast new processor technology. Speed is not Lilypond's strongest point. Other, less powerful but still quite good, text-to-musicscore commandline programs like mup (shareware), abc

Re: Lilypond Speed

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 22:05 +0100, Graham Percival wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > > Actually, I stumbled upon something very odd: though I haven't the > > exact numbers, with 2.12 my opera used to compile in ~40 minutes on > > Win32, ~25 minutes on Li

Re: Lilypond Speed

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > How is that odd?  More complicated algorithms take more time.  I > haven't followed the details of the spacing changes, but I'd > certainly expect them to take longer. I do too, but -- let me do the math -- a _360%_ increase, really? :-) R

Re: Lilypond Speed

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > Actually, I stumbled upon something very odd: though I haven't the > exact numbers, with 2.12 my opera used to compile in ~40 minutes on > Win32, ~25 minutes on Linux64 -- but now that I have upgraded to the > latest git sources

Re: Lilypond Speed

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > W00t, I got only > real    5m47.699s > user    5m32.306s > sys     0m11.697s > on my linux system (C2D @ 2 GHz), but I'm still on 2.12.1, which gave me some > error messages, though the PDF was created. Perhaps 2.13 is a little > faster(?)

Re: Lilypond Speed

Frank wrote: >Am Donnerstag, 3. September 2009 schrieb Tim Reeves: > >> Mainly for my own curiosity, I compiled the Reubke Sonata score to check >> timing: >> WinXP SP3 32-bit, LP 2.13.3, LPT 2.12.869, on Intel C2D E9600 (2.8GHz), 2 >> GB RAM >> >> 5 min 38 seconds. >> >> A bit slower than the Li

Re: Lilypond Speed

--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > From: Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > To: "Jonathan Wilkes" > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 6:40 AM > Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > &

Re: Lilypond Speed

Am Donnerstag, 3. September 2009 schrieb Tim Reeves: > Mainly for my own curiosity, I compiled the Reubke Sonata score to check > timing: > WinXP SP3 32-bit, LP 2.13.3, LPT 2.12.869, on Intel C2D E9600 (2.8GHz), 2 > GB RAM > > 5 min 38 seconds. > > A bit slower than the Linux times others got. W0

Re: Lilypond Speed

Mainly for my own curiosity, I compiled the Reubke Sonata score to check timing: WinXP SP3 32-bit, LP 2.13.3, LPT 2.12.869, on Intel C2D E9600 (2.8GHz), 2 GB RAM 5 min 38 seconds. A bit slower than the Linux times others got. I do have a Vista machine at home (wife's PC) I could check it on if

Re: Lilypond Speed

Am Donnerstag, 3. September 2009 schrieb Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool): > Please don't start this discussion :) Then how about a discussion about top posting? ;-) ;-) *duckandhide* -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' What do you call a dead bee? - A was. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally

Re: Lilypond Speed

Version 1.6.0)) and while LP is no speed demon, there are a *lot* of calculations and processes happening and I don't expect a score to be rendered in 3 seconds. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailm

Re: Lilypond Speed

n Intel Mac and can install all three OSes on their own partitions and do a comparison that way. I use LilyPond on a 1.33 gHz PPC iBook with 1 GB RAM, called from Carbon Emacs (GNU Emacs 22.2.1 (powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0, Carbon Version 1.6.0)) and while LP is no speed demon, there

Re: Lilypond Speed

a 1.33 gHz PPC iBook with 1 GB RAM, called from Carbon Emacs (GNU Emacs 22.2.1 (powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0, Carbon Version 1.6.0)) and while LP is no speed demon, there are a *lot* of calculations and processes happening and I don't expect a score to be r

RE: Lilypond Speed

> -Original Message- > From: lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org > [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org] On > Behalf Of Nick Payne > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 7:02 PM > Cc: 'lilypond' &

RE: Lilypond Speed

> -Original Message- > From: lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org > [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org] On > Behalf Of Michael David Crawford > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 1:39 AM > Cc: lilypond > Subject: Re: L

Re: Lilypond Speed

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: While LilyPond may be single threaded, in general the underlying operating system is multithreaded. It might be the case that a system call LilyPond depends on can get executed in a multithreaded way. LilyPond almost does not interact with the OS except for reading and

Re: Lilypond Speed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Michael David Crawford wrote: > > > Peter Chubb wrote: >> >> Han-Wen> More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number >> Han-Wen> of cores is irrelevant. > > While LilyPond may be single threaded, in general the underlying operating > system is multithr

Re: Lilypond Speed

Peter Chubb wrote: Han-Wen> More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number Han-Wen> of cores is irrelevant. While LilyPond may be single threaded, in general the underlying operating system is multithreaded. It might be the case that a system call LilyPond depends on can get

Re: Lilypond Speed

> "Han-Wen" == Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: Han-Wen> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Peter Han-Wen> Chubb wrote: >> I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, >> and amount of RAM.  Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends >> to have quite a deep stack, and to use

Re: Lilypond Speed

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Peter Chubb wrote: > I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, > and amount of RAM.  Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends to > have quite a deep stack, and to use lots of memory --- which it > visits in what looks to the processo

Re: Lilypond Speed

>>>>> "Nick" == Nick Payne writes: Nick> As I have just had a rather powerful evaluation server to play Nick> around with for a few days while I tested our various Windows Nick> and Linux server builds on it, I thought I'd also take the Nick> o

Re: Lilypond Speed

As I have just had a rather powerful evaluation server to play around with for a few days while I tested our various Windows and Linux server builds on it, I thought I'd also take the opportunity to compare the build speed of a reasonably substantial score. I used Reinhold's setting o

Re: Lilypond Speed

--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > From: Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > To: "Jonathan Wilkes" > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 6:40 AM > Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > &

Re: Lilypond Speed

Jonathan Wilkes wrote: It sounds like there is a wide discrepancy depending on machine/os/etc. Does anyone have any insight into how I could decrease this time on my winxp machine? I feel like if I could get it down to something close to one second, it would be a lot easier to learn Lilypond

Lilypond Speed (Jonathan Wilkes)

Dear Jonathan, It takes me 11 seconds the first time, 4 seconds without a version number and 3 seconds with a version number. AMD Sempron 2500+ 1.4 GHz, 448MB of RAM Physical Address Extension Windows XP Professional Fred ___ lilypond-user mailing list li

Re: Lilypond Speed

Am Freitag, 28. August 2009 schrieb Jonathan Wilkes: > It sounds like there is a wide discrepancy depending on machine/os/etc. > > Does anyone have any insight into how I could decrease this time on my > winxp machine? Half way through reading that sentence I wanted to say "install Linux". *d&h* -

Re: Lilypond Speed

Hello, I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: \relative c' { c4 d e fis } I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes 7 seconds to complete, whether I do it on the command line or in LilypondTool. -Jo

Re: Lilypond Speed

Wilbert Berendsen wrote: on a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7400 @ 2.80GHz : wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ echo "\\relative c' { c4 d e fis }" > test.ly wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ time lilypond test ok, this is the command I was looking for.. so... on a Intel Cor

Re: Lilypond Speed

using LilypondTool to set Lilypond to run every time I enter a barcheck? Thanks, Jonathan --- On Fri, 8/28/09, Thomas Scharkowski wrote: > From: Thomas Scharkowski > Subject: Re: Lilypond Speed > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org, "Jonathan Wilkes" > Date: Friday, August 28, 20

Re: Lilypond Speed

Op vrijdag 28 augustus 2009, schreef Federico Bruni: > Frescobaldi does not give me timing information. I just implemented this in SVN! ;-) best regards, Wilbert Berendsen -- Frescobaldi, LilyPond editor for KDE: http://www.frescobaldi.org/ Nederlands LilyPond forum: http://www.lilypondforum.nl/

Re: Lilypond Speed

I'm sure it is a little more, but not much ;-) Thomas Intel E6750 @ 2.66Ghz, 2 GM RAM Windows Xp SP3, LilyPondTool -- Processing `C:/LilyPondFiles/test/time.ly' Parsing... Interpreting music... Preprocessing graphical objects... Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages] Drawing systems... L

Re: Lilypond Speed

Jonathan Wilkes Friday, August 28, 2009 5:45 PM Hello, I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: \relative c' { c4 d e fis } I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes 7 seconds to complete, whether I

Re: Lilypond Speed

on a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7400 @ 2.80GHz : wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ echo "\\relative c' { c4 d e fis }" > test.ly wilb...@sweelinck:~/ly/test$ time lilypond test GNU LilyPond 2.13.1 Verwerken van `test.ly' Ontleden... test.ly:0: warning: geen \version uitd

Re: Lilypond Speed

Am Freitag, 28. August 2009 schrieb Jonathan Wilkes: > Hello, > I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the > following simple score: > > \relative c' { > c4 d e fis > } > > I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes > 7 seconds to com

Re: Lilypond Speed

On 28.08.2009, at 19:35, Federico Bruni wrote: Jethro Van Thuyne wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: It took me 4,474 seconds How can you be so precise? :-) OSX has a time comm

Re: Lilypond Speed

It took me 4,474 seconds on Debian, Intel Core2Duo T7250 @ 2.00GHz with 2GB ram. And with a version statement it takes 0,941 seconds... Jethro. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lilypond Speed

Hi Jonathan, I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: \relative c' { c4 d e fis } About 1.5 seconds on my MacBook 667GHz G5 w/1GB RAM. Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.

Re: Lilypond Speed

Jethro Van Thuyne wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: It took me 4,474 seconds How can you be so precise? :-) Frescobaldi does not give me timing information. If I type in a termin

Re: Lilypond Speed

On 28.08.2009, at 18:45, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: Hello, I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: \relative c' { c4 d e fis } I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes 7 seconds to complete, whethe

Re: Lilypond Speed

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: It took me 4,474 seconds on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram on Debian, Intel Core2Duo T7250 @ 2.00GHz with 2GB ram. Jethro. ___

Lilypond Speed

Hello, I'm curious how long it takes for other people to run lilypond on the following simple score: \relative c' { c4 d e fis } I'm on winxp sp3, pentium 1.7Ghz with 512mb ram and it consistently takes 7 seconds to complete, whether I do it on the command line or in LilypondTool. -Jon

Re: Lilypond speed

2009/8/4 Graham Percival : > Why do people never believe me when I say that there's tons of > cool stuff we /could/ do, if only more people helped out? That's not my point. My point is to make sure that nothing potentially cool gets lost. > Of course, there's no point writing the sequel until th

Re: Lilypond speed

t; posted, otherwise I'd have noticed it). > > Even though there's clearly no magic recipe to speed up LilyPond > (except multi-threading, but we're nowhere near implementing it), the > server approach could be very, very useful for all kind of purposes. Why do people never

Re: Lilypond speed

2009/8/4 Graham Percival : > There you go: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2005-11/msg00024.html This is huge! (I suspect I wasn't subscribed to -devel when this was posted, otherwise I'd have noticed it). Even though there's clearly no magic recipe

Re: Lilypond speed

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:19 AM, hernan wrote: > My main frustration with Lilypond is speed. In my setup (Win-XP, P4 3.0Ghz, 1G > ram) to process a fairly simple scoresheet (2 or 3 pages) it takes about 8 > seconds. That might not seem a great deal, but it is really annoying when one >

Re: Lilypond speed

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:10:18PM -0300, hernan gonzalez wrote: > >> I read in the main.cc source that the GUILE start-up is very time > >> consumming. I > >> wonder if some modification in the code could be done so that the GUILE > >> startup > >> occurs once for several compilation cycles, som

Re: Lilypond speed

>> I read in the main.cc source that the GUILE start-up is very time >> consumming. I >> wonder if some modification in the code could be done so that the GUILE >> startup >> occurs once for several compilation cycles, something as (pseudocode) > > Yes, that's been done with the lilypond server.

Re: Lilypond speed

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:19:28AM +, hernan wrote: > Is there some recipe to speed things up? Are the performance bottlenecks > identified? There are some minor tweaks you can do. I think they're currently listed in LM 5. "Speeding up typesetting" or something like t

Lilypond speed

My main frustration with Lilypond is speed. In my setup (Win-XP, P4 3.0Ghz, 1G ram) to process a fairly simple scoresheet (2 or 3 pages) it takes about 8 seconds. That might not seem a great deal, but it is really annoying when one is doing lots of retouching (edit one bit, compile, see results

Re: Speed-up compiling

On 07/30/2009 04:29 AM, Patrick Horgan wrote: Here's the fix. Without buying a new computer, you can buy new RAM (Random Access Memory) and you'll THINK that you have a new computer. It will make you amazed at the difference! You will dance around and shout Huzzah! Woman will hold up their babi

Re: Speed-up compiling

1) but are there general suggestions which help to speed up the compiling process? The one thing you could do is greatly increase your ram to 1GB.  You'll think you have a new computer for $50-$150.  Here's why. Here's the problem. You're thrashing to disk, which means the a

Re: Speed-up compiling

score object), the LilyPond process uses more than 600MB. Enlarging the amount of memory available will speed up things considerably. best regards, Wilbert Berendsen -- Frescobaldi, LilyPond editor for KDE: http://www.frescobaldi.org/ ___ lilypond

Re: Speed-up compiling

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Michael Käppler wrote: > Hi Mark, > >> Maybe try using \pointAndClickOff ? I don't know if point-and-click >> slows things down, but it certainly increases filesize. >> >> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond-program/Point-and-click >> >> > I'

Re: Speed-up compiling

Hi Mark, Maybe try using \pointAndClickOff ? I don't know if point-and-click slows things down, but it certainly increases filesize. http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond-program/Point-and-click I've tested this, rendering only the last 100 measures: When I ran Lily the fi

Re: Speed-up compiling

way too old to do such > complex task quickly - (Athlon XP 2600, 256MB Ram, OpenSUSE 11.1) > but are there general suggestions which help to speed up the > compiling process? An hour and a half sounds much, much longer than it should be taking. Here are some thoughts: Maybe try usi

Speed-up compiling

and a half hour Lilypond still was "Preformatting graphical elements..." (Don't know what's the correct term in the english version) I know that's my laptop is way too old to do such complex task quickly - (Athlon XP 2600, 256MB Ram, OpenSUSE 11.1) but are there general

Lilypond speed on Windows/Linux

FYI: I have tested LilyPond 2.7.18 on Windows XP and Kanotix/Debian, same box (quite old), same file, same HD, both with jEdit: Windows: 52 seconds Linux: 27 seconds Thomas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mai

Re: lilypond speed

On 09/12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Roman V. Isaev wrote: > > > > Well, I have it both ways. It's slow if I use cygwin, it's slow > >if I run it from cmd.exe prompt or drag a .ly file on its icon. > That's not the question. My question is whether you're using the > "Native" 2.6 binary (availabl

  1   2   >