[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs-devel list IS slow [was Re: follow mode for occur]
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs-devel list IS slow [was Re: follow mode for occur] |
Date: |
Sat, 29 May 2004 16:16:02 +0200 |
> From: address@hidden (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: 28 May 2004 10:43:53 +0200
>
> Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Is it just me or the emacs-devel list is very very slow?
>
> There is DEFINITELY a problem at gnu.org again.
>
> For example, the following message has been waiting inside
> gnu.org for more than 24 hours.
Here's another example. Note that it took 3 hours for the message to
make the leg from mail to the list:
Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34)
id 1BTMah-0004pp-KT
for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:14:43 -0400
Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34)
id 1BTJjj-00068U-HL
for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:12:23 -0400
and the whopping 22 hours from the list back to email:
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1BThng-0007zS-R9
for address@hidden; Fri, 28 May 2004 09:53:32 -0400
Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34)
id 1BTMah-0004pp-KT
for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:14:43 -0400
Can someone on system-hackers please explain what is going on and why?
The full message follows:
Mail-from: From address@hidden Fri May 28 17:58:29 2004
Return-path: <address@hidden>
Envelope-to: address@hidden
Delivery-date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:58:29 -0400
Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1BTpMz-0005PA-JX
for address@hidden; Fri, 28 May 2004 17:58:29 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1BThng-0007zS-R9
for address@hidden; Fri, 28 May 2004 09:53:32 -0400
Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34)
id 1BTMah-0004pp-KT
for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:14:43 -0400
Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34)
id 1BTJjj-00068U-HL
for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:12:23 -0400
Received: from [192.114.186.23] (helo=aragorn.inter.net.il)
by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTJji-000685-LA
for address@hidden; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:11:51 -0400
Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-231.inter.net.il [80.230.196.231])
by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id CYN22387;
Thu, 27 May 2004 15:04:51 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:02:59 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden (Kim F. Storm)
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <address@hidden> (address@hidden)
References: <address@hidden>
<address@hidden>
<address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Improving emacs process performance (for free?)
X-BeenThere: address@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
<mailto:address@hidden>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
<mailto:address@hidden>
Sender: address@hidden
Errors-To: address@hidden
> From: address@hidden (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: 27 May 2004 11:02:30 +0200
>
> So a minimum stack usage would be 3*10+16 = 46KB + what's allocated
> elsewhere. Pretty close to 64K if you ask me :-|
Do we have some system supported by Emacs where the stack is merely a
64KB? I think Emacs cannot run on such systems anyway; in the old
days when DJGPP (used to produce the DOS port) had a 256KB limit on
the stack, the Emacs binary was produced specially to have twice that
much, i.e. 512KB, because 256KB were not enough.
I think 512KB used by the DOS port is the smallest amount of stack we
have on any supported platform.
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel