if you run without the switch it will create the result without compression, so you will be back to a 400Gb file. Instead run everything in one single command. With compression it is likely to take some extra time, as some calculation has to be done to achieve that. If you want speed, tile the raster and also there are a few other switches to add so gdalwarp can use more than one core to make this calcs, and you can also too give more memory to it like: --config GDAL_SWATH_SIZE 2000000000 --config GDAL_CACHEMAX 2000 -wm 2000 -co "tiled=yes" -co "BLOCKXSIZE=256" -co "BLOCKYSIZE=256" -wo "NUM_THREADS= ALL_CPUS" -multi -co "NUM_THREADS=ALL_CPUS" -co "bigtiff=yes"
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:43 AM Brian <mulcahy.bri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it faster to do a gdal_warp with compression then without? Is it safe > to assume the drive write speed would be the limiting factor for speed in > this case? > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:33 AM Cainã K. Campos <rupestre.cam...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello Brian, >> >> Try to add the switch -co "COMPRESS=LZW" to the command line to >> generate a compressed result with lossless compression. >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:07 AM Brian <mulcahy.bri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> So compressed this raster is fairly small about 120mb but running >>> gdal_warp produces a raster that is about 416 gb, is this something this >>> list can help with? If so I can upload the file somewhere and let you >>> guys/gals take a look at it. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gdal-dev mailing list >>> gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >> >>
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
