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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: PTgui -- why doesnt it just use RAM?

Expand Messages
  • AYRTON - avi
    THANKS !!!! ayrton ... -- AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101 www.vrfolio.com
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.