page%swap@Sun.COM (Bob Page) (06/30/89)
rich@sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us wrote:
>Purely subjectively, it [gnus] *feels* faster than rn on my machines.
I tried switching from rn to GNUS when 3.12 arrived, and couldn't take the
enormous performance hit. rn was so much faster I had to change back. I
was waiting more than 30 seconds between selecting a newsgroup and entering
subject/article mode.
If it matters, I'm using a news spool that's nfs mounted, rather than
using NNTP. All the GNUS code is byte-compiled.
I had high hopes for GNUS, and still do, but the speed difference was quite
noticable. GNUS is so flexible I'd like to give it another try, but I need
to get the speed problem - which apprently doesn't exist everywhere - fixed.
..bobabair@turbinia.oakhill.uucp (Alan Bair) (06/30/89)
I have been using GNUS for a couple weeks now. I will admit it is slower than rn, but the flexibilty makes up for most of the slow down. I am also using an NFS mounted News directory. Someone else at our site is looking into installing NNTP, does anyone know if it will be faster or slower than the NFS mounting method? Alan Bair UUCP cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!turbinia!abair
ntanaka@ARAGORN.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Nobuyoshi Tanaka) (06/30/89)
In article <ABAIR.89Jun30015555@turbinia.oakhill.uucp> abair@turbinia.oakhill.uucp (Alan Bair) writes: installing NNTP, does anyone know if it will be faster or slower than the NFS mounting method? At first, I was using rn, and then switched to GNUS. At that time, I was using GNUS by something like NFS, it was very slow. After that, I switched to using NNTP, GNUS is much faster. I don't know if GNUS via NNTP is faster than rn or not. But, it is fast enough. This is my experience.
rich@sendai.sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us (K. Richard Magill) (06/30/89)
In article <ABAIR.89Jun30015555@turbinia.oakhill.uucp> abair@turbinia.oakhill.uucp (Alan Bair) writes:
I have been using GNUS for a couple weeks now. I will admit it is
slower than rn, but the flexibilty makes up for most of the slow
down. I am also using an NFS mounted News directory. Someone else
at our site is looking into installing NNTP, does anyone know if it
will be faster or slower than the NFS mounting method?
slower.
The speed win comes in how you use the reader. My news spool is a
local disk on a 3/50. When I read news in rn, for groups of less than
10 articles, I just read them sequentially. gnus startup cost for
these groups is effectively zero so no difference. For groups of >10,
I always "index" in rn (often, in between each article) which provides
gnus type functionality but takes longer than the gnus per-group
startup cost. I also tend to nnnnn down through all of my groups in
rn and then ppppp back to pick one to read. With gnus, I see them all
at the same time so I don't have this problem. In fact, I can pick
articles and newsgroups with my mouse. My indexes in rn also include
poster and my indexes in gnus sort by subject so I can see the current
length of a subject thread.
I will admit the win is smaller on a dumb terminal, and I'll also
mention that the integrated environment (emacs for news, mail,
editting) vs the separate tools and shell escapes is something of a
religious war. (Please, let's not start it again here.)
If you are doing simple sequential reading, rn may be faster, but I'd
guess that readnews is even faster. If you scan newsgroups, and scan
subjects (or posters, or ...) before you even decide what to read,
then I'll bet gnus looks faster to you.
--
rich.rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (07/01/89)
In article <NTANAKA.89Jun30110705@ARAGORN.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU> ntanaka@ARAGORN.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Nobuyoshi Tanaka) writes: NT> In article <ABAIR.89Jun30015555@turbinia.oakhill.uucp> NT> abair@turbinia.oakhill.uucp (Alan Bair) writes: NT> installing NNTP, does anyone know if it will be faster or slower than NT> the NFS mounting method? NT> At first, I was using rn, and then switched to GNUS. At that time, I NT> was using GNUS by something like NFS, it was very slow. After that, I NT> switched to using NNTP, GNUS is much faster. I don't know if GNUS via NT> NNTP is faster than rn or not. But, it is fast enough. NT> This is my experience. I always use gnus. Now it's a lot faster than rn if you use nntp with gnus.
arosen@hen.ulowell.edu (MFHorn) (07/06/89)
In article <113255@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> page%swap@Sun.COM (Bob Page) writes: rich@sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us wrote: >Purely subjectively, it [gnus] *feels* faster than rn on my machines. I tried switching from rn to GNUS when 3.12 arrived, and couldn't take the enormous performance hit. I haven't used GNUS w/ an NFS mounted partition, only NNTP. Reading on a 3/280, being served by a decrepid VAX 11/750 (Hi Bob :-) is pretty quick. I can't compare it to rrn, because the 3/280 doesn't have rrn. It is much faster than rrn on a Sequent Balance 21K (20 cpus). I gave up waiting for GNUS on the 21K to read my (513 line) .newsrc . I'd expect GNUS using NNTP would be faster than NFS; you wouldn't have to deal with all the authentication NFS generates. -- Andy Rosen | arosen@swan.ulowell.edu | "I got this guitar and I ULowell, Box #3031 | ulowell!arosen | learned how to make it Lowell, Ma 01854 | | talk" -Thunder Road RD in '88 - The way it should've been