Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ulowell!m2c!wpi!jhallen From: jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: stuff Message-ID: <1777@wpi.wpi.edu> Date: 7 Apr 89 20:19:40 GMT References: <1686@wpi.wpi.edu> <3865@mipos3.intel.com> Reply-To: jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen) Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. USA Lines: 134 In article <3865@mipos3.intel.com> woodstock@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) writes: >In article <1686@wpi.wpi.edu>, jhallen@wpi (Joseph H Allen) writes: >>vi is 4 times less CPU hungry than emacs is. No way is all of that due to >>EMACS being lispified. > >4 times? Where did you get that number? I'd be interested in seeing >your benchmarks. > Certainly: Here's the top of the 'sa' listing from my school's Encore multimax mainframe: [#calls secs real secs cpu core size program] [------ ----------- ----------- --------- -------] 714990920181100.13re 451044.24cp 11avio 7k 32452 127982.62re 91468.04cp 35avio 58k a.out 279 41175.65re 33656.60cp 231avio 1k MOPAC 31 19555.90re 16891.89cp 27avio 2k tang.exe 52 20578.62re 16483.96cp 286avio -62k 3d 5271 60848.38re 16151.23cp 43avio 0k ftp 1465 36636.23re 10989.31cp 44avio -4k macsyma 462 13825.55re 10770.85cp 6avio 0k rsa.out 76195 624754.68re 9645.13cp 62avio 0k gnu-emacs 196 10987.85re 9384.23cp 204avio 3k dr 273 10850.05re 7308.51cp 16836avio 0k save.out 20 8190.77re 7257.58cp 93260avio 0k u.out 2539 8185.82re 6504.13cp 5avio 0k test 11079 16738.35re 6142.62cp 360avio 99k data_divid 37 6615.15re 5496.17cp 6280avio -101k vortex9 1315 596559.10re 5437.55cp 42avio 0k bitfd* 22162 75731.72re 5276.16cp 61avio 0k bboard 37 7442.20re 4356.29cp 3avio 0k elegxos 3729 21597.55re 4333.92cp 52avio -85k scheme 15 4466.52re 4168.84cp 492avio 19k vent1 13054 48746.87re 4098.52cp 12avio 0k e 205584 2192733.50re 3850.42cp 8avio 0k sendmail* 15 4680.92re 3775.66cp 147avio 0k prog7 30 4497.17re 3742.22cp 159avio 0k bda 162267 5664264.98re 3700.58cp 21avio 0k csh 33015 605976.45re 3388.80cp 15avio 0k rscsd* 420 3787.57re 3283.69cp 38avio -13k b.out 117 5106.43re 3244.78cp 2avio 0k monop 474 4944.00re 3071.42cp 42avio 0k ***other 56251 3808.97re 3034.36cp 8avio 0k fcom 53 3775.92re 2996.52cp 12443avio -5k vortex3 5 3232.38re 2902.40cp 687avio -191k ven 743 5023.98re 2812.68cp 82avio 0k tasef 6339 5880.40re 2784.78cp 7avio 0k mabel 164240 223939.97re 2596.93cp 24avio 0k mail 9 3413.75re 2480.35cp 29avio 0k drequalz.e 14300 77374.25re 2463.92cp 34avio 0k nethack 25530 149623.03re 2434.80cp 229avio 0k rn 541 3824.80re 2376.03cp 3861avio 0k tube.out 40 2717.67re 2317.02cp 44062avio -59k kd 40 3599.60re 2252.66cp 25721avio 0k save1.out 486 2954.83re 2214.46cp 1avio -73k fmt_dy* 8487 45253.10re 2159.62cp 21avio 0k hack 11 2521.67re 2144.97cp 51avio 0k tang1.exe 66 4040.55re 2009.51cp 2108avio 0k vortex2 7551 3249.00re 1965.10cp 56avio 0k lastcomm 14 2651.83re 1927.65cp 20avio 0k drequal.ex 48157 2685.98re 1893.86cp 9avio 0k ccom 5 2154.97re 1805.24cp 9avio 0k fig1 169950 6392.33re 1786.44cp 24avio 0k inews 58 1923.00re 1646.43cp 5avio 0k rs3.out 349 2064.15re 1631.45cp 25avio 0k c.out 95 2087.37re 1627.74cp 32avio 0k exsyn.out 7 1737.28re 1614.59cp 234avio 0k vent 431564 402749.30re 1558.32cp 1avio 0k sh 34 1768.58re 1548.63cp 7avio 0k rs5.out 309 2125.90re 1505.15cp 13avio -71k fmt_dy 82 3682.57re 1486.00cp 90avio -57k qp 230 2029.45re 1483.01cp 40avio 0k 3dim 60201 2327.20re 1467.09cp 42avio 0k ld 28 1586.87re 1422.36cp 25avio 0k yan2 576667 2957.47re 1408.25cp 0avio 0k grep 266924 3513.67re 1371.92cp 2avio 0k ls 9 1461.85re 1368.42cp 19avio 0k mmm.out 38 1718.97re 1368.08cp 105avio 0k ray 648678 45645.02re 1363.77cp 0avio 0k sh* 3353 3319.60re 1320.71cp 715avio 0k find 71 1692.70re 1305.62cp 22avio 0k aa 10 1865.40re 1260.93cp 55avio 0k sequal.exe 127 1614.80re 1191.68cp 7avio 0k lu 26 1401.15re 1190.06cp 6avio 0k rs7.out 50 1268.60re 1183.52cp 5avio 0k rs4.out 9 1328.20re 1155.93cp 26avio 0k siproc2 6 1256.00re 1121.20cp 54064avio 0k uh.out 49 1461.25re 1106.32cp 7avio 0k rs1.out 11966 1306.72re 1074.89cp 6avio 0k mklev 4 1243.73re 1067.24cp 69avio 0k fire2 1332 1249.88re 1066.50cp 2avio 0k bye 30676 154142.85re 1043.17cp 28avio 0k vi 72859 15334.23re 1032.50cp 24avio 0k sendmail 25 1151.97re 1027.32cp 11775avio 0k unsteady [remaining 150k deleted] Sorry so long, but showing how much higher up EMACS is compared to vi is quite theatrical: CPU time per session comparison (biased towards vi since people use emacs several times per session by suspending it): emacs: cpu-secs/sessions = .127 vi: cpu-secs/sessions = .0340 emacs is 3.74 times worse. CPU time per real time (biased towards emacs since emacs gets left idle for long periods): emacs: CPU/REAL = .0154 vi: CPU/REAL = .00677 emacs is 2.27 times worse. So assuming people do similer things with emacs and vi, emacs is about 3 times worse (ok, so my 4 times estimate was a bit exaggerated :-). Actually, emacs may be 4 times as worse on other systems because on ours, the terminal servers do some of the simple editing work, but only for emacs. Other notes: the program 'e' shown above is an editor I wrote which some people are using. Unfortunately, it's currently very inefficeint because it has a timing loop (ticks are too slow) to time the terminal output data. This is so that it doesn't fill up the terminal server's output buffer so that it remains interruptable (I use it over 1200 baud phone line you see). nethack is very popular right now. MOPAC, the second top cpu time user before a.out is a chemical simulator of some kind. monopOLY crashed over christmas break.