Hi: Well, I post my .xmf file(the attachment). In fact，the structure of the xmf file is simple. It only contains some <Grid>. I use a "for()" loop to write this file. The raw data is HDF5 data format. Is something wrong? Thanks for help.
2009-09-01，"Berk Geveci" [email protected]> ： >Can you post an example dataset? Just the xmf file would be sufficient. > >-berk > > Re:Re: [Paraview] Paraview store all data in every server node? >> Hi: >> I used vtkXdmfReader to read my data(ParaView version is 3.4.0), and I >> also found some information about my problem(XDMF bad memory use) from >> the mail list. But I didn't find a final resolution for it. >> My problem is, for example: >> run: mpirun -np 4 ./pvserver >> after reading data and rendering isosurface, each >> node(process) consume 2GB memory >> and run: mpirun -np 16 ./pvserver >> after reading data and rendering isosurface, each >> node(process) also consume 2GB memory >> For this problem, I could't visualize large-scale dataset. Because if a >> dataset could be visualized by one node, It also could be visualized by 16 >> nodes, but if it could't be visualized by one node, it also could't by 16 >> nodes(or more). >> Maybe I should try ParaView 3.6.1. I will cry if the problem still exist >> in version 3.6.1...... >> >> 2009-08-30，"Andy Bauer" <[email protected]> ： >> >> The problem may be the reader that you're using. Some of the readers in VTK >> are not parallel so even if you run multiple processes each process will >> still try to load the entire dataset in that case. >> >> Andy >> >> 2009/8/30 weaponfire2005 [email protected]>: >>> >>> Hi all: >>> First thanks for Dave.Demarle's help. >>> I use "mpirun -np 4 ./pvserver" to launch a server with four >>> nodes, visualizing a 800*800*300 grid. It seems that each process consume >>> too much memory. So I extend the number of nodes from 4 to 8 using "mpirun >>> -np 8 ./pvserver" , but each process on 8 nodes server consume the same >>> memory as 4 nodes server. The situation of 16 processes(16 nodes) is same as >>> above. >>> I thought that with the number of processes' growth, each process on >>> server would share less raw data, so the quantity of memory each process >>> consuming would decline. It proved that I was wrong. Could someone tell me >>> the reason? >>> Thanks for your help:) >>> Pan Wang >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>> >>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>> >>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: >>> http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >>> >>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview >>> >> >> >> >> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >> >> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: >> http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >> >> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview >> >>
zhbFieldsBXSingle3_10.xmf
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview
