Thomas Walter wrote: > > Let me know the result. > > > Here they are: > > Part1 of my macro fills the histograms, Part2 does some fits and in Part3 > the histograms are displayed and the ps-file is generated. > > These are the results for interactiv root. See the big differencies > between the RealTime and the CPUTime in Part 3: > > Part 1 RealTime: 82.29 CPUTime: 79.39 > Part 2 RealTime: 1.97 CPUTime: 1.93 > Part 3 RealTime: 536.55 CPUTime: 36.53 > > And here the results gained with root -b: > > Part 1 RealTime: 81.3 CPUTime: 79.8 > Part 2 RealTime: 1.99 CPUTime: 1.95 > Part 3 RealTime: 5.5 CPUTime: 4.6 > > As you can see, the second version is a factor 10 faster than the first > one. > > If I remember me correctly, this discrepancy already existed in Zuerich. > I displayed the histograms over the ethernet-lan from one computer to > another. So I guess, the problem isn't a slow link between Hamburg and > Zuerich. > > Thomas Walter Thomas, As I was expecting, your problem has nothing to do with Postscript. it is a pure X11 problem. I am aware of performance problems in case you run on a Solaris 2.6 machine and your X server is another machine even on the same LAN. Are you running on a Solaris machine? If yes, this problem should be investigated. It is not a Root problem. Ian Bird from Jefferson Lab raised this problem some time ago. I do not know if they found a solution. As a simple test, could you try to run Netscape on your machine in Zuerich and try to use it from your display in Hamburg? Rene Brun
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:43:29 MET