Hi Bart, I'm sorry for delayed response. It's examination time here at my university and today it's going to end :)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Bart van Andel <bavanan...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Dip, > > I'm sorry but I fail to see the importance of these preliminary results. > > You did not provide detailed enough info about the used equipment to see > what the results mean. My guess is that the Atom equipped computer contains > far less memory than the Core one, and obviously it has less processing > power. > > I'm sorry again that i didn't uploaded all details in full. Actually i'm doing some initial testing here to understand different scenarios for performance test. During this i think i gave less attention towards wiki documentation. Anyways i'll fix it with few more interesting test results soon. For the time being please find configurations of machine used here : machine-1: http://goo.gl/XRQcY and machine-2: http://goo.gl/MO2hp Also raw data for all these tests here: http://goo.gl/GXVm4 > Some observations: > - The CPU usage graphs look pretty similar when stretched to 100% of the > total time used (so each device takes 100%) instead of time in seconds. > - This is also valid for the memory write graph (what is read/secs? KB/s? > Read operations per second?) > - About the same is true for the memory graphs, although of course the Core > uses more memory than the Atom. Is this total amount of memory used by the > whole system or just by Hugin? I'm asking because (max mem) - (min mem) is > about 200MB for both devices. And please use MB instead of kB on the > vertical axis, this makes it more readable. > This initial testing was for overall system when all other activities on system were nominal. (Next step would be to test only on Hugin+it's dependencies processes only). Sure i'll take care of using units which will little easy to read hence forth. > - Because the Atom has less memory *and* less speed it can't read all the > images at once but spreads it out over more time than the Core. This is all > pretty logical and I don't see what information your tests have provided > that we couldn't know by simple reasoning. > > In my test, Core was around 1.83125 times faster than atom. If core took 51 secs to complete the given task then atom should finish it in 51*1.83125 = ~93.4 secs when rest of the system and software configurations are made same. But atom took ~124 secs to complete the task. Question is if i take small single board computer like this http://goo.gl/CdQ9j will hugin run on it? How long does it take to perform the task etc? > Furthermore, the notion that > > Calculating/finding the > bottlenecks and tuning expensive algorithms to boost this performance > should be valued contribution to hugin community. > > always makes sense, it does not need a speed test. Tuning algorithms > (especially memory intensive ones, where not all data will fit in RAM) for > optimal performance and memory usage is a nice aim, but I don't think that's > what you propose to do yourself. At least your proposal doesn't mention it. > > Yes, I must have to measure the performance of atleast core algorithms (probably on different hardware). > I've taken a look at the schedule in your proposal too and don't get me > wrong, but you're taking a lot of time to create a working XML > parser/builder. I hope you're aware that there are libraries available which > will do this task for you without you having to worry about implementation > details, right? For instance, PHP has SimpleXML and also XmlReader/XmlWriter > which are very easy to use and definitely don't need 2 months work. > > When i said to build XML core engine meaning to build a system that will listen for responses for various scatter hugin clients and will take actions accordingly. I have to intension to build yet another xml reader/writer or parser etc. Probably some miss-communication happed from mine side! > Last point: why would I want a tab to evaluate Hugin speed? I can see a > point in a menu item for this, but something as permanently visible as a tab > does not make sense to me. > > Overall I think your proposal definitely needs some work. I hope you didn't > think this reply is too discouraging, I'm just trying to see the actual > point in this. > > Discouraging? Nope, not at all! I love this part. Different thoughts, views are always welcome. This helps a lot while understanding the problem statements at greater extent... Thanks. Best, Dip > -- > Bart > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. > A list of frequently asked questions is available at: > http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ > To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx