From xemacs-m  Mon Dec 16 10:22:31 1996
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12]) by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA24170 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:22:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from xdiv.lanl.gov (xdiv.lanl.gov [128.165.116.106]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id JAA07749 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:22:31 -0700 (MST)
Received: from branagh.lanl.gov (branagh.lanl.gov [128.165.16.72]) by xdiv.lanl.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08842; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:21:58 -0700
Received: by branagh.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA03083; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:19:42 -0700
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:19:42 -0700
Message-Id: <199612161619.JAA03083@branagh.lanl.gov>
From: John Turner <turner@xdiv.lanl.gov>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 19.15-b4 bench results (Hanoi)
In-Reply-To: <199612160657.XAA02385@branagh.lanl.gov>
References: <199612160002.RAA28973@branagh.lanl.gov>
	<m2engrfgsj.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199612160501.WAA02208@branagh.lanl.gov>
	<199612160646.XAA02372@branagh.lanl.gov>
	<199612160657.XAA02385@branagh.lanl.gov>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Following up to myself again:

 > When I use a frame of the size I normally use (the full height of my
 > screen, I believe 58 lines or so), it's slow.  Times like I showed
 > before, over 10.  When I use a tiny little frame, just big enough to
 > display the towers, it rocks.  Under 4 seconds.

I was thinking that the size of the frame should affect other
benchmarks as well, like the scrolling one, so I tested that.

It does indeed matter, but the advantage is in the opposite direction
for scrolling.  For a big frame it takes 75 seconds, for a small (10
lines or so) frame, it's 87.  Makes sense.

I'm wondering if bench.el should pop up a frame of a predetermined
size in which to run benchmarks for which the frame size would
matter...

-John

