[OS X TeX] Time penalty when using kpsewhich on mac os x?

[jfbu]

Le 11 oct. 2014 à 19:58, Adam R. Maxwell <amaxwell at mac.com> a écrit :

> 
>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 10:31 , jfbu <jfbu at free.fr> wrote:
>> 
>> Thus, I wonder if the 1/2 second for kpsewhich only to 
>> return the value of TEXMFLOCAL is observed on other Mac OS X
>> MacTeX installations, or if there is some misconfiguration
>> on my personal machine, like environment variables which could
>> induce kpsewhich to a non-necessary scanning
>> of repertories
> 
> On a 2007 MacBook Pro with a hard disk, running
> TL 2013 on Mac OS X 10.9.5, I get
> 
> $ time kpsewhich -var-value=TEXMFLOCAL
> /usr/local/texlive/texmf-local
> 
> real	0m1.401s
> user	0m0.926s
> sys	0m0.038s
> 
> On a new MacBook Pro with an SSD, running
> TL 2013 on Mac OS X Yosemite beta, I get
> 
> 
> $ time kpsewhich -var-value=TEXMFLOCAL
> /usr/local/texlive/texmf-local
> 
> real	0m0.571s
> user	0m0.552s
> sys	0m0.010s
> 
> So…I'd be happy with your 0.5 second value.
> 
> Adam
> 

Hi Adam,
my mba has an SSD which possibly explains my .5s

In the thread on the tug-k mailing list Reinhard Kotucha reported:

Le 8 oct. 2014  03:35, Reinhard Kotucha :
> 
> | $ time kpsewhich -var-value=SELFAUTOLOC
> | /usr/local/texlive/2014/bin/x86_64-linux
> | 
> | real	0m0.003s
> | user	0m0.000s
> | sys	0m0.002s
> | 
> | $ time kpsewhich -var-value=TEXMFLOCAL
> | /usr/local/texlive/texmf-local
> | 
> | real	0m0.189s
> | user	0m0.175s
> | sys	0m0.011s
> 
> Why are SELFAUTOLOC and TEXMFLOCAL treated differently?
> 
> 
> BTW, without the filesystem cache I get
> 
> | # echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> | 
> | $ time kpsewhich -var-value=TEXMFLOCAL
> | /usr/local/texlive/texmf-local
> | 
> | real	0m0.555s
> | user	0m0.160s
> | sys	0m0.021s
> 
> Jean-Francois, this value is close to that one you reported.  It's quite
> useful to run a system monitor when doing benchmarks.  The first thing
> you'll learn is that benchmarks are more or less worthless when a
> resource greedy web browser is running.

I still get the feeling from Karl Berry's reply quoted in my previous
mail that 0.5s is somehow unexpected.

Your values make the thing worse yet!

best,

Jean-Francois