Describe the bug
It seems aminal has pretty awful performance compared to other options out there.
I saw someone else had tried a bunch of terminal emulators, benchmarking them simply by taking the .txt representation of the RFC 3261 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt approx. 15k lines) and dumping the file contents on the screen, so I decided to try the same.
For cmd.exe I specifically executed: timeit cmd /c type rfc3261.txt
For bash on WSL I specifically executed: time cat rfc3261.txt
It typically seems that most time is always spent on the first run, likely due to them growing the buffer to the maximum size before becoming more performant, so I ran every test 3 times in a row in the same terminal without reopening it and recorded the range rounded to two decimals.
I set each console window to be 128x48 characters in size. I've configured ConEmu to use DejaVu Sans Monospace -font but the others are using whatever is their default.
I believe these were the defaults, but just in case:
The absolute values I got are less relevant (especially because of configuration differences), but the point is the relative difference of everything else being measured in seconds and aminal being consistently incredibly slow compared to any other alternative. It seems aminal was 35.8x to 134.7x slower than conhost (with bash, the cmd.exe differences fall in the ~75-85x range).
Dump the contents of rfc3261.txt into the terminal with type or cat
Expected behavior
Printing out the file contents should take a time measured in seconds, not minutes.
Environment (please complete the following information):
Windows (Win10 1809)
Aminal 2019-04-22 (8f0027d)
cmd.exe & WSL bash
Additional context
As additional notes aminal was the only one to keep an additional host terminal window open, was the most difficult to size to the desired size, and was the only one with issues with the clipboard (pasting multiple lines of text ended up with extra blank lines in between the lines).
I realize this is software in development and so on, but thought I'd mention these as well.
Describe the bug It seems
aminal
has pretty awful performance compared to other options out there.I saw someone else had tried a bunch of terminal emulators, benchmarking them simply by taking the
.txt
representation of the RFC 3261 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt approx. 15k lines) and dumping the file contents on the screen, so I decided to try the same.On
cmd.exe
I used thetimeit
command from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17657 as per https://stackoverflow.com/a/752307/3989287 to get execution time. Onbash
under Windows Subsystem for Linux I used thetime
command.cmd.exe
I specifically executed:timeit cmd /c type rfc3261.txt
bash
on WSL I specifically executed:time cat rfc3261.txt
It typically seems that most time is always spent on the first run, likely due to them growing the buffer to the maximum size before becoming more performant, so I ran every test 3 times in a row in the same terminal without reopening it and recorded the range rounded to two decimals.
I compared:
conhost
(the Windows default command prompt)I set each console window to be 128x48 characters in size. I've configured ConEmu to use DejaVu Sans Monospace -font but the others are using whatever is their default.
I believe these were the defaults, but just in case:
Alacritty
had 10000 line bufferaminal
I believe defaults to 1000 line bufferConEmu
had 10000 line bufferconhost
had 9001 line bufferHyper
had 1000 line bufferThe results I got
cmd.exe
:Alacritty
: 1.15 - 1.28saminal
: 136.81 - 156.31s (2min 16.81s - 2min 36.31s)ConEmu
: 1.63 - 2.08sconhost
: 0.90 - 2.95sHyper
: 1.14 - 1.30sbash
:Alacritty
: 1.20 - 1.50saminal
: 126.61 - 147.89s (2m 6.61s - 2m 27.89s)ConEmu
: 0.79 - 1.75sconhost
: 0.94 - 4.13sHyper
: 1.19 - 1.46sThe absolute values I got are less relevant (especially because of configuration differences), but the point is the relative difference of everything else being measured in seconds and
aminal
being consistently incredibly slow compared to any other alternative. It seemsaminal
was 35.8x to 134.7x slower thanconhost
(withbash
, thecmd.exe
differences fall in the ~75-85x range).To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:
aminal
bash
rfc3261.txt
into the terminal withtype
orcat
Expected behavior Printing out the file contents should take a time measured in seconds, not minutes.
Environment (please complete the following information):
cmd.exe
& WSLbash
Additional context As additional notes
aminal
was the only one to keep an additional host terminal window open, was the most difficult to size to the desired size, and was the only one with issues with the clipboard (pasting multiple lines of text ended up with extra blank lines in between the lines).I realize this is software in development and so on, but thought I'd mention these as well.