Hamish wrote:
Luigi Ponti wrote:
As a less-than-two-year old cygwin/GRASS user, I have never seen
virtual memory going over 1 GB while doing intensive computations
with GRASS (e.g., v.surf.idw interpolation).
Have you been getting out-of-memory errors or are you concerned that
you are not making best use of all available resouces?
Yes: the latter.
If the latter,
you don't see grass using much memory because it is fairly efficent
most of the time and doesn't need to- especially the core GIS and
raster parts of it. When you consider the amount of RAM+CPU power
typically available back when that code was written, it isn't
surprising that it was done in such a way.
Thanks Hamish, I see your point. What I don't quite understand is why
CPU usage always goes up to 100% when running GRASS commands, while
allocated memory is always about 25% -- flat, no peaks.
A nice side effect of being built under those constraints is that now
with more computing resources available it scales to huge datasets
quite well.
That's something I never considered -- interesting.
So only worry if you are getting out-of-memory errors, otherwise just
enjoy. It won't use any more or less memory than just the amount it
needs.
So in my case the CPU is very busy because of the Cygwin overload but
the memory usage doesn't go up because of GRASS efficiency?
Kind regards,
Luigi
_______________________________________________
grass-user mailing list
grass-user@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
