[XeTeX] [texhax] Throughput

[Peter Davis]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Peter Davis <pfd at pfdstudio.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Davis <pfd at pfdstudio.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Peter Davis <pfd at pfdstudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Martin Schröder <martin at oneiros.de>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2011/3/3 William Adams <will.adams at frycomm.com>:
>>>> > Have you tried processing it w/o including the graphics?
>>>>
>>>> That would be my first guest. Try with the draft option...
>>>>
>>>
>>> (NB: Just replying to texhax, to avoid cross-posting issues I seem to
>>> have triggered.)
>>>
>>> I tried running 200 pages, with and without draft mode.  Specifically, I
>>> put draft mode on the graphicx package:
>>>
>>> \includepackage[draft]{graphicx}
>>>
>>> I used the --time-statistics option on the xelatex command to get
>>> timings.  The results are:
>>>
>>> Non-draft:
>>> gross: 111634 ms, user mode: 17050 ms, kernel mode: 50778 ms, total:
>>> 67828
>>> Draft:
>>> gross: 77941 ms, user mode: 12589 ms, kernel mode: 27300 ms, total: 39889
>>>
>>
>> Now using \newfontfamily *and* [draft]{graphicx} ...
>>
>>  gross execution time: 45458 ms
>> user mode: 8658 ms, kernel mode: 25006 ms, total: 33664
>>
>> A definite improvement.  Now to try etex and box registers for the
>> external graphics.
>>
>
>
> Ok, I tried using \savebox, and got this:
>
> gross execution time: 3996 ms
> user mode: 1123 ms, kernel mode: 436 ms, total: 1559
>
>
I fixed the random name generator (which generates unique names for the
saveboxes), and now the entire 35,000 page job runs in 8 minutes.  Quite a
difference from over 10 hours!  This was just from two optimizations: using
\newfontfamily and using \newsavebox for all the graphics.

I'd still like to get it down to 2 or 3 minutes, but I'm in range now.

Thank you *VERY* much for all the help suggestions and information here.
 (Sorry for cross-posting again, but I wanted to reach everyone who
commented.  Please don't reply to both lists.)

Cheers,
-pd


-- 
----
The Tech Curmudgeon
http://www.techcurmudgeon.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20110305/612b5a52/attachment.html>