Hi all I've been testing. Seems like something happens when I set tilesize (BLOCKXSIZE/BLOCKYSIZE) to 256 or bigger. My test program (VisualBasic2010) produced an untiled file of 100000x100000 pixels in 324 seconds. (Uncompressed, no overviews) I can live with that.
With tilesize 128 it takes 1586 seconds. With tilesize 256 it takes forever (1.5 sec/ROW for the first 20) Are there any caching options that I can set? Cache buffer size? Total cache size? Other? Will the performance be better if I write tiles instead of scanlines? Best regards Helge On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 19:12, Axline, John <[email protected]> wrote: > It looks like WriteRaster [or some other component in the process] hasused > all available memory and now > has to do massive amounts of churning between the last snippet of memory and > your hard drive. Whether it’s a leak or a ‘feature’ of some library the > author depended on is of course moot. If you can kill un-needed processes and > free some memory (e.g. using Task Manager) you might get back into the 1 > pct/hour range, but probably would too-soon get back to glacial speed. > > If you don’t feel comfortable canceling tasks, you can lower their > priority. But don’t set your WriteRaster job (or anything) to realtime > priority – in that situation your mouse/keyboard becomes so non-responsive > the computer appears to be frozen. > > One or more unrelated processes (e.g. an automatic virus scanner) might > also have become active, doing its chore inefficiently because of the lack > of resources. > > You might also try the process on a 64-bit machine with a serious amount > of memory, and a local high-speed disk or (RAID 0) disk array. > >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
