I suspect this is a function of CPU, disk, perhaps memory, and
possibly LTspice/OS version.
My figures were:
1m:??? ??? 0.187s
10m:??? ? 1.325s
100m:??? 12.8s
1:??? ??? ??? 126s
So, once past the first step, the execution time remains
approximately a linear function simulation time. I don't get any
msg: "expanding repeating PWL()". Perhaps this is an improvement of
17.1.x?
The figures were about the same whatever number of threads I limited
LTspice to use (not surprisingly).
--
Regards,
Tony
On 30/07/2023 23:13, Andy I wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
FYI -- For me, it
still hangs (or takes a VERY long time) when I include the REPEAT
FOREVER ... ENDREPEAT around the PWL file.? I do not have
experience with that particular format, so I can't tell you why it
does not seem to like it
With .tran 10m, it's quick.? 0.7 seconds.
With .tran 100m, it's much slower.? 16 seconds.? Most of the extra
time is "expanding repeating PWL()".
With .tran 1, it's MUCH MUCH slower.? It takes
more than 18 minutes.? It did eventually finish.
Apparently?the CPU time to assemble the repeating PWL is not
proportional to the requested simulation time,?for whatever
reason.