Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: PTgui -- why doesnt it just use RAM?

Expand Messages
  • Hans Nyberg
    ... In PTGui Preferences/Plugins write: -m 3000 in the command line parameters If your mac and Enblend 3.0 behaves the same as mine enblend will crash after a
    Message 1 of 19 , Dec 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "AYRTON - avi" <avi@...> wrote:
      >
      > On 12/1/07, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:
      >
      > > The 11400x5700 16bit takes 31 minutes using PTguiWarp + Ptgui Blend.
      > >
      > > Using PTGuiWarp + Enblend with 3 GB Ram applied I get down to 19.20 minutes.
      >
      > Sorry I could NOT figure out HOW to aplly more RAM when using Enblend ???
      > Pls some directions will be appreciatted :-)
      > Thanks

      In PTGui Preferences/Plugins write: -m 3000 in the command line parameters

      If your mac and Enblend 3.0 behaves the same as mine enblend will crash after a while if
      you try to apply 3600 or more.
      How much Ram did you get?
      I just found out that I can update my G5 with 4 gb and get 8 in all for just $130.
      I guess I paid 4 btimes as much at least for the 4 GB I got when I bought the G5.

      Hans
    • AYRTON - avi
      ... Thanks and sorry but can someone point me to where could I learn that ??? I mean, how I would know that by myself ??? ... 4GB ... here in Brazil RAM is
      Message 2 of 19 , Dec 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On 12/1/07, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:

        >
        > In PTGui Preferences/Plugins write: -m 3000 in the command line parameters

        Thanks
        and sorry but can someone point me to where could I learn that ???
        I mean, how I would know that by myself ???

        >
        > If your mac and Enblend 3.0 behaves the same as mine enblend will crash after a while if
        > you try to apply 3600 or more.
        > How much Ram did you get?

        4GB

        > I just found out that I can update my G5 with 4 gb and get 8 in all for just $130.
        > I guess I paid 4 btimes as much at least for the 4 GB I got when I bought the G5.

        here in Brazil RAM is getting very cheap everyday too
        I remember the first MAC I use in the 90's and the price was 1 dolar
        for each 1mb :-(

        AYRTON

        >
        > Hans
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        --
        AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com
        Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101 www.vrfolio.com
        Outeiro da Glória - RJ - 22211-100 - Brasil www.vr-images.com
        Panoramas do Rio de Janeiro www.rio360.com.br
      • Hans Nyberg
        ... http://enblend.sourceforge.net/ Has all the commandline parameters But I think PTGui should have a little more about it on the tutorial page.
        Message 3 of 19 , Dec 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "AYRTON - avi" <avi@...> wrote:
          >
          > On 12/1/07, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > In PTGui Preferences/Plugins write: -m 3000 in the command line parameters
          >
          > Thanks
          > and sorry but can someone point me to where could I learn that ???
          > I mean, how I would know that by myself ???
          >

          http://enblend.sourceforge.net/
          Has all the commandline parameters

          But I think PTGui should have a little more about it on the tutorial page.
          http://www.ptgui.com/plugins.html

          As far as I know there are some commands prebuilt into PTGui at least the parameter for
          blending around the 360 degree wrap.

          Hans
        • AYRTON - avi
          THANKS !!!! ayrton ... -- AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101 www.vrfolio.com
          Message 4 of 19 , Dec 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            THANKS !!!!

            ayrton


            On 12/1/07, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:
            > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "AYRTON - avi" <avi@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > On 12/1/07, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > >
            > > > In PTGui Preferences/Plugins write: -m 3000 in the command line parameters
            > >
            > > Thanks
            > > and sorry but can someone point me to where could I learn that ???
            > > I mean, how I would know that by myself ???
            > >
            >
            > http://enblend.sourceforge.net/
            > Has all the commandline parameters
            >
            > But I think PTGui should have a little more about it on the tutorial page.
            > http://www.ptgui.com/plugins.html
            >
            > As far as I know there are some commands prebuilt into PTGui at least the parameter for
            > blending around the 360 degree wrap.
            >
            >
            > Hans
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >


            --
            AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com
            Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101 www.vrfolio.com
            Outeiro da Glória - RJ - 22211-100 - Brasil www.vr-images.com
            Panoramas do Rio de Janeiro www.rio360.com.br
          • Charlie Hubbard
            ... Yes it still amazes me how cheap computer equipment has become. There seems to be no end. I m a bit older than you, I think. I got my first computer
            Message 5 of 19 , Dec 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              > here in Brazil RAM is getting very cheap everyday too
              > I remember the first MAC I use in the 90's and the price was 1 dolar
              > for each 1mb :-(

              Yes it still amazes me how cheap computer equipment has become. There
              seems to be no end. I'm a bit older than you, I think. I got my first
              computer around 1979 or 1980. RAM cost 200 dollars (US) for 16 kilobytes
              (but dropped to $100 for 16kB before the thing was completely obsolete).
              And prices have been plummeting ever since. I remember when the first
              1GB hard disks came out. They were big, noisy, power hungry, and very
              expensive. I remember thinking at the time "How could I ever possibly
              use up an entire gigabyte?!" I knew a guy who had one. He had it
              partitioned into 16 or so logical drives to keep the file system's block
              size reasonably small. Today it's pretty routine to have single files
              larger than 1GB. I remember getting a 3GB external SCSI drive out at
              work in the early 90's. We had it sitting on a typing table next to the
              computer. It was a monster. The table actually shook when the drive
              was spinning up. Today I carry an 8GB thumb drive in my pocket. Who
              can forget Bill Gates' 1983 quote "Nobody will ever need more than 640
              kB of RAM." Today even modest computers have 1- or 2,000 times that
              much RAM. I remember when 640x480 reigned supreme and JPGs were
              extremely annoying because it took SO DAMN LONG for them to decode.
              Times have changed. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.
            • panotools@360image.de
              Hi Matt, ... 5 hours seems a bit excessive. Although, you work on a laptop which have low speed hdd usually. On your speedtest results you mention an external
              Message 6 of 19 , Dec 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Matt,
                >
                >
                > What I'm fairly certain of is that in the 5 hours it takes my dual core
                > 2GHz machine (2:30 minutes on Milko's speedtest) to stitch a 16bit
                > 11,000x5500 image, my CPU reads 5-10% most of the time and my disks are
                > not being accessed much of this time (and could write 1GB a few hundred
                > times in that time anyway, if that were truly the bottleneck).
                >
                5 hours seems a bit excessive. Although, you work on a laptop which have
                low speed hdd usually.
                On your speedtest results you mention an external 500gig drive connected
                with USB2.
                Are you hosting the panorama project files and sources on that drive?
                And where are you sending your temp files to?

                Cheers, Milko
              • matt_nolan_uaf
                Milko, I guess I need to do some further controlled tests, but as you know my machine performed your speed test at 2.5 minutes, which is comparable to others.
                Message 7 of 19 , Dec 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Milko,

                  I guess I need to do some further controlled tests, but as you know
                  my machine performed your speed test at 2.5 minutes, which is
                  comparable to others. Using the same configuration, a 11,000 x 5,500
                  pix pano (7 images at 70 MB each) at 8 bit takes about 30-45 minutes
                  to process (need to check). Going to 16 bit more than doubles it to
                  5 hours or more (dont know, I always kill it first). But there could
                  easily be something buggering up my system that has nothing to do
                  with PTgui itself. Glad to hear that others are doing this much
                  faster. Maybe we need another speed test -- one with a large file
                  size, as there could be different issues associated with this?

                  To all, yes, my laptop has tons of stuff loaded on it, and I have
                  seen the light of buying a dedicated stitching box. But in
                  researching the fastest hard drives, I read about hard disks built
                  from RAM that plug into a standard SATA slot. These are not flash
                  disks, but literally using RAM and I began thinking, why is there any
                  disk access at all for a project that can fit into real RAM anyway?
                  I'm still not sure why.

                  In case others are interested, visit this page to learn about the
                  apparent benefits of setting up two such RAM disks in RAID 0.
                  http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/05/hyperos_dram_hard_drive_on_the_
                  block/page6.html The big winner seems to be iRAM, which you can buy
                  for about $140 for the card and up to 4 GB of cheap slow RAM (buying
                  fast RAM doesnt help, because the cheap stuff is already maxing out
                  the 1.5 GB/s SATA channel, and there is no 3.0GB/s disk yet
                  apparently).

                  For spherical fisheye stitching, where project needs are never higher
                  than 3 or 4 GB max of scratch space, this could be the silver bullet
                  that could get Milko's test down to near zero. These disks in RAID 0
                  are apparently hundreds to thousands of times faster than Raptors or
                  SAS!

                  Another trick I've read about is called quarter stroking your disk.
                  Apparently you can create a partition on a 7500 RPM disk such that
                  the partition is only using the inner portion of the disk, so that
                  the arm doesnt move so far. Doing this is apparently faster than
                  using a 15k SAS disk, and much cheaper, and plus you still get the
                  slow part of the disk to use for storage.

                  So I'm beginning to think of a system like this:
                  - XP 64 bit loaded onto a 16 GB flash disk
                  - RAID 0 iRAM 2 GB disks for stitching fisheye sphericals
                  - RAID 0 750 GB disks SATA II quarter stroked to provide about 375 GB
                  of fast scratch space for gigapixel panos, with the rest (about 1TB)
                  for storage.
                  - eSATA external disks for backup

                  My other constraint is that I work from home and live off the
                  electrical grid. So these flash and RAM disks make great sense for
                  me, as thinking of a computer with a 500W power supply give me the
                  shudders...


                  -Matt




                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panotools@..." <panotools@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Matt,
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > What I'm fairly certain of is that in the 5 hours it takes my
                  dual core
                  > > 2GHz machine (2:30 minutes on Milko's speedtest) to stitch a 16bit
                  > > 11,000x5500 image, my CPU reads 5-10% most of the time and my
                  disks are
                  > > not being accessed much of this time (and could write 1GB a few
                  hundred
                  > > times in that time anyway, if that were truly the bottleneck).
                  > >
                  > 5 hours seems a bit excessive. Although, you work on a laptop which
                  have
                  > low speed hdd usually.
                  > On your speedtest results you mention an external 500gig drive
                  connected
                  > with USB2.
                  > Are you hosting the panorama project files and sources on that
                  drive?
                  > And where are you sending your temp files to?
                  >
                  > Cheers, Milko
                  >
                • matt_nolan_uaf
                  I created a RAM disk using http://www.ramdisk.tk/, changed my scratch disk and write disk to the ram disk, and ran Milko s speed test and got exactly the same
                  Message 8 of 19 , Dec 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I created a RAM disk using http://www.ramdisk.tk/, changed my scratch
                    disk and write disk to the ram disk, and ran Milko's speed test and got
                    exactly the same results -- 2 minutes 30 seconds. Wierd. How could it
                    not be incredibly faster? My dual CPUs ran at 50%, with one near 100%
                    and the other near idle; I checked the affinity for PTgui was set to
                    both.

                    -Matt


                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Postle <bruno@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Sat 01-Dec-2007 at 22:28 -0000, matt_nolan_uaf wrote:
                    > > To create a hi-res spherical, PTgui says 7 tiffs at 70MB each
                    > > requires about 1GB of scratch disk -- if I have 4 GB of RAM, why
                    > > does it need a disk at all except to save the final image?
                    > > Wouldn't doing everything in RAM dramatically speed things up,
                    > > especially since disk I/O seems to be the bottleneck?
                    >
                    > Good point, try setting up a 2GiB RAM disk for the scratch data and
                    > see if that makes an improvement.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Bruno
                    >
                  • Joost Nieuwenhuijse
                    This is because PTGui was already using RAM.. PTGui stores temporary data in temp files, but due to the OS s file system caching, the files never really get
                    Message 9 of 19 , Dec 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This is because PTGui was already using RAM..

                      PTGui stores temporary data in temp files, but due to the OS's file
                      system caching, the files never really get written to disk but instead
                      they are cached in RAM. Only for large panoramas the OS will not have
                      enough cache memory and that's when the temporary files actually start
                      being written to disk.

                      This also means that PTGui should use all available RAM as long as the
                      OS is not doing anything else.

                      These 'stitching speed' questions are always difficult to answer since
                      there are so many factors that influence the speed.

                      Joost


                      matt_nolan_uaf wrote:
                      > I created a RAM disk using http://www.ramdisk.tk/, changed my scratch
                      > disk and write disk to the ram disk, and ran Milko's speed test and got
                      > exactly the same results -- 2 minutes 30 seconds. Wierd. How could it
                      > not be incredibly faster? My dual CPUs ran at 50%, with one near 100%
                      > and the other near idle; I checked the affinity for PTgui was set to
                      > both.
                      >
                      > -Matt
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Postle <bruno@...> wrote:
                      >> On Sat 01-Dec-2007 at 22:28 -0000, matt_nolan_uaf wrote:
                      >>> To create a hi-res spherical, PTgui says 7 tiffs at 70MB each
                      >>> requires about 1GB of scratch disk -- if I have 4 GB of RAM, why
                      >>> does it need a disk at all except to save the final image?
                      >>> Wouldn't doing everything in RAM dramatically speed things up,
                      >>> especially since disk I/O seems to be the bottleneck?
                      >> Good point, try setting up a 2GiB RAM disk for the scratch data and
                      >> see if that makes an improvement.
                      >>
                      >> --
                      >> Bruno
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Pat Swovelin
                      ... Is that also a good number for WinXP with 4GB RAM and the 3GB switch flipped? ... Pat Swovelin Cool Guy @ Large
                      Message 10 of 19 , Dec 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 12/1/2007 3:44 PM, Hans Nyberg rambled on about ...:
                        > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "AYRTON - avi" <avi@...> wrote:
                        >> On 12/1/07, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >>> The 11400x5700 16bit takes 31 minutes using PTguiWarp + Ptgui Blend.
                        >>>
                        >>> Using PTGuiWarp + Enblend with 3 GB Ram applied I get down to 19.20
                        >>> minutes.
                        >> Sorry I could NOT figure out HOW to aplly more RAM when using Enblend ???
                        >> Pls some directions will be appreciatted :-)
                        >> Thanks
                        >
                        > In PTGui Preferences/Plugins write: -m 3000 in the command line parameters

                        Is that also a good number for WinXP with 4GB RAM and the 3GB switch
                        flipped?

                        > If your mac and Enblend 3.0 behaves the same as mine enblend will
                        > crash after a while if
                        > you try to apply 3600 or more.
                        > How much Ram did you get?
                        > I just found out that I can update my G5 with 4 gb and get 8 in all
                        > for just $130.
                        > I guess I paid 4 btimes as much at least for the 4 GB I got when I
                        > bought the G5.
                        >
                        > Hans




                        Pat Swovelin
                        Cool Guy @ Large
                      • matt_nolan_uaf
                        This is because PTGui was already using RAM.. ... instead ... have ... start ... I guess I m missing something easy and fundamental. For fisheye sperhical
                        Message 11 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          This is because PTGui was already using RAM..
                          >
                          > PTGui stores temporary data in temp files, but due to the OS's file
                          > system caching, the files never really get written to disk but
                          instead
                          > they are cached in RAM. Only for large panoramas the OS will not
                          have
                          > enough cache memory and that's when the temporary files actually
                          start
                          > being written to disk.
                          >

                          I guess I'm missing something easy and fundamental. For fisheye
                          sperhical projects using only a GB or so, does this mean that using a
                          virtual RAM disk will have no benefit on any computer, not just my
                          slow, bloated one? Also, if everything is happening in RAM already
                          with a small stitch, why is there a hard disk bottleneck at all?



                          > This also means that PTGui should use all available RAM as long as
                          the
                          > OS is not doing anything else.
                          >
                          > These 'stitching speed' questions are always difficult to answer
                          since
                          > there are so many factors that influence the speed.

                          I bet. But I guess my interest in understanding the existing messy
                          hardware issues is so that I can purchase something that is optimized
                          for stitching, with a minimum of unknowns involved.

                          What I'm trying to decide at the moment is whether it's worth
                          investing in something like the iRAM disks, or whether virtual RAM
                          disks would do the same thing but better. These iRAM disks seem to
                          be an order of magnitude faster or more than the fastest spinning
                          disks. Any insights would be appreciated.

                          Thanks,
                          Matt
                        • Joost Nieuwenhuijse
                          ... If you have enough RAM, yes. Windows will effectively emulate a RAM disk by means of file caching. ... For small panoramas there should not be a hard disk
                          Message 12 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            matt_nolan_uaf wrote:
                            > This is because PTGui was already using RAM..
                            >> PTGui stores temporary data in temp files, but due to the OS's file
                            >> system caching, the files never really get written to disk but
                            > instead
                            >> they are cached in RAM. Only for large panoramas the OS will not
                            > have
                            >> enough cache memory and that's when the temporary files actually
                            > start
                            >> being written to disk.
                            >>
                            >
                            > I guess I'm missing something easy and fundamental. For fisheye
                            > sperhical projects using only a GB or so, does this mean that using a
                            > virtual RAM disk will have no benefit on any computer, not just my
                            > slow, bloated one?

                            If you have enough RAM, yes. Windows will effectively emulate a RAM disk
                            by means of file caching.

                            > Also, if everything is happening in RAM already
                            > with a small stitch, why is there a hard disk bottleneck at all?

                            For small panoramas there should not be a hard disk bottleneck, assuming
                            that disk caching is enabled for your temp drive (thanks to Bernhard for
                            pointing that out..)

                            > What I'm trying to decide at the moment is whether it's worth
                            > investing in something like the iRAM disks, or whether virtual RAM
                            > disks would do the same thing but better. These iRAM disks seem to
                            > be an order of magnitude faster or more than the fastest spinning
                            > disks. Any insights would be appreciated.

                            I think it will not make much difference, but the only way to find out
                            is by trying. But that could be an expensive experiment, I agree..

                            Joost
                          • Bernhard Vogl
                            ... Well it s not as simple ;-) - quarter stroking *can* speed up head positioning as long as you don t use the other portions of the disk. But similar
                            Message 13 of 19 , Dec 5, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Another trick I've read about is called quarter stroking your disk.
                              > Apparently you can create a partition on a 7500 RPM disk such that
                              > the partition is only using the inner portion of the disk, so that
                              > the arm doesnt move so far. Doing this is apparently faster than
                              > using a 15k SAS disk, and much cheaper, and plus you still get the
                              > slow part of the disk to use for storage.

                              Well it's not as simple ;-) - "quarter stroking" *can* speed up head positioning as long as you don't use the other portions of the disk. But similar concepts are implemented in nearly every file system driver. E.g. the middle of the disk is used to store directory information and the data is arranged around it. Chunks of a file are stored near to each other as long as there's enough space left for an optimal placement. Only if the filesystem is nearly full, the chunks are placed non-optimal.
                              This is the reason why you never should fill a files system above approx 70%.
                              Another thing to point out: It's not the inner side of the disk which is the fastest, it's the outer side. The disk surface below the head has an higher speed here, so you can store more data in a given time than on the inner side.

                              Just in case i didn't already mention: I strongly suggest everyone who is not perfectly sure what he's doing to use a standard setup instead of tweaking the system. There are chances that the system become worse than before...

                              Best regards
                              Bernhard
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.