Mon, Mar 24 2003
17:25:07
|
|
Request created by guest
|
|
Subject: d.what.sites slow and possibly wrong output
Platform: Irix
grass obtained from: CVS
grass binary for platform: Compiled from Sources
GRASS Version: Latest CVS
The latest CVS version of d.what.sites seems to give some strange output:
"+" at 352786.7768595(E) 336373.55371901(N)
gpsheights in PERMANENT 352785.935|336372.876 1813 15.334 0.0111
Distance from "+":268765336.00
25inspot in PERMANENT 352792.5360959|336371.4729453 18
Distance from "+":268701408.00
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This number seems very big? Or else its meaning is unclear.
It's also noticeably slower, e.g. half a second delay between the results for
each sites layer displayed appearing, on the slow old machine I'm using at the
minute.
Paul
|
|
Mon, Mar 24 2003
20:24:36
|
|
Mail sent by glynn.clements@virgin.net
|
|
Return-Path |
<glynn.clements@virgin.net>
|
Delivered-To |
grass-bugs@lists.intevation.de
|
From |
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>
|
MIME-Version |
1.0
|
Content-Type |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding |
7bit
|
Message-ID |
<15999.23061.677960.709420@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk>
|
Date |
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:18:45 +0000
|
To |
Request Tracker <grass-bugs@intevation.de>
|
Cc |
grass5@grass.itc.it
|
Subject |
Re: [GRASS5] [bug #1759] (grass) d.what.sites slow and possibly wrong output
|
In-Reply-To |
<20030324162508.8BFE713B4A@lists.intevation.de>
|
References |
<20030324162508.8BFE713B4A@lists.intevation.de>
|
X-Mailer |
VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid
|
X-Spam-Status |
No, hits=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03 version=2.43
|
X-Spam-Level |
|
Request Tracker wrote:
> Subject: d.what.sites slow and possibly wrong output
>
> Platform: Irix
> grass obtained from: CVS
> grass binary for platform: Compiled from Sources
> GRASS Version: Latest CVS
>
> The latest CVS version of d.what.sites seems to give some strange output:
>
> "+" at 352786.7768595(E) 336373.55371901(N)
> gpsheights in PERMANENT 352785.935|336372.876 1813 15.334 0.0111
> Distance from "+":268765336.00
> 25inspot in PERMANENT 352792.5360959|336371.4729453 18
> Distance from "+":268701408.00
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This number seems very big? Or else its meaning
> is unclear.
The number should be the distance between the location of the click
and the nearest site. FWIW, I get sensible results on Linux/x86 with
the spearfish dataset.
I can't see any obvious portability issues; I suspect that you will
need to use a debugger to determine why it doesn't work for you.
> It's also noticeably slower, e.g. half a second delay between the
> results for each sites layer displayed appearing, on the slow old
> machine I'm using at the minute.
Looking at what's been added, the changes consist mostly of graphical
operations.
1. There are 8 calls to R_flush() per click; if this call is slow,
either because XClearWindow() (which basically copies the frame-buffer
pixmap to the screen) is slow or there's significant lag in the
communication link, then that would explain it.
2. The frame-buffer pixmap is read from the X server and saved to a
temp file (by R_panel_save()) before each click, and restored from the
file afterwards. This will be slow if the X connection is slow,
particularly if the window is large and/or has a high bit depth.
IMHO, the animation feature is a gimmick, and should be scrapped. The
GRASS graphics API isn't SDL; it wasn't designed for this sort of
thing.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>
|
|
Tue, Mar 25 2003
15:45:11
|
|
Mail sent by paul-grass@stjohnspoint.co.uk
|
|
Return-Path |
<paul-grass@stjohnspoint.co.uk>
|
Delivered-To |
grass-bugs@lists.intevation.de
|
Date |
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:45:09 +0000 (GMT)
|
From |
Paul Kelly <paul-grass@stjohnspoint.co.uk>
|
X-X-Sender |
paulk@agrippa.ukshells.co.uk
|
To |
grass-bugs@intevation.de
|
Cc |
grass5@grass.itc.it
|
Subject |
Re: [GRASS5] [bug #1759] (grass) d.what.sites slow and possibly wrong output
|
In-Reply-To |
<15999.23061.677960.709420@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk>
|
Message-ID |
<Pine.LNX.4.53.0303251440130.11162@agrippa.ukshells.co.uk>
|
References |
<20030324162508.8BFE713B4A@lists.intevation.de> <15999.23061.677960.709420@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk>
|
MIME-Version |
1.0
|
Content-Type |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
|
X-Spam-Status |
No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01, USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.43
|
X-Spam-Level |
|
I've fixed this by adding #include <math.h> to the start of the file
src/display/d.what.sites/what.c . Some other sqrt() function must have
been being used, which was giving the wrong answer. It also runs much
faster now.
Paul
> Request Tracker wrote:
>
> > Subject: d.what.sites slow and possibly wrong output
> >
> > Platform: Irix
> > grass obtained from: CVS
> > grass binary for platform: Compiled from Sources
> > GRASS Version: Latest CVS
> >
> > The latest CVS version of d.what.sites seems to give some strange output:
> >
>
> > It's also noticeably slower, e.g. half a second delay between the
|
|
Mon, Nov 17 2003
08:04:08
|
|
Comments added by hbowman
|
|
Cc: grass5@grass.itc.it
Hi,
GRASS 5.3/HEAD (Nov 2003)
Using the non-5.0.x d.what.sites over a 10Mbit ssh connection down the hall is
very slow & uses a ton of bandwidth during the "vector blink" stage. The
cursor doesn't return to crosshairs for several seconds, to the point where it
is unusable. (sites file contains a total of 4 sites)
see also:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.grass.devel/1380
blame:
R_panel_save() & R_panel_restore() sending xwd over the X connection, followed
by a disk write to a temporary file.
but what can be done to fix the problem? The current situation sucks.
Would Carl Worth's driver fix this? Figure out how not to use XGetImage() and
XPutImage()?
'd.barscale -m' seems to work ok without such issues..?
[also, cosmetically, I'd think you'd want a -v:verbose flag not a -q:quiet
flag to show / suppress debug info. And the -q flag should suppress the
"loading sites@mapset...NDIM=2, RTYPE = 0, NSTR=5, NDEC=0"
text as well.. I can make the change if people agree, or not if they don't.
noisiest wins.]
Hamish
|
|
Mon, Nov 17 2003
15:16:35
|
|
Mail sent by glynn.clements@virgin.net
|
|
Return-Path |
<glynn.clements@virgin.net>
|
Delivered-To |
grass-bugs@lists.intevation.de
|
From |
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>
|
MIME-Version |
1.0
|
Content-Type |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding |
7bit
|
Message-ID |
<16312.54737.829354.677347@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk>
|
Date |
Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:06:09 +0000
|
To |
Harmisch Bowman via RT <grass-bugs@intevation.de>
|
Cc |
grass5@grass.itc.it
|
Subject |
Re: [GRASS5] [bug #1759] (grass) d.what.sites: very slow over a network connection
|
In-Reply-To |
<20031117070409.1DEEC13B53@lists.intevation.de>
|
References |
<20031117070409.1DEEC13B53@lists.intevation.de>
|
X-Mailer |
VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 14) "Reasonable Discussion" XEmacs Lucid
|
X-Spam-Status |
No, hits=-4.9 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
|
X-Spam-Level |
|
Harmisch Bowman via RT wrote:
> Using the non-5.0.x d.what.sites over a 10Mbit ssh connection down the hall
is
> very slow & uses a ton of bandwidth during the "vector blink" stage. The
> cursor doesn't return to crosshairs for several seconds, to the point where
it
> is unusable. (sites file contains a total of 4 sites)
>
> see also:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.grass.devel/1380
>
> blame:
> R_panel_save() & R_panel_restore() sending xwd over the X connection, followed
> by a disk write to a temporary file.
>
> but what can be done to fix the problem?
Simply revert the changes. The driver architecture wasn't designed to
do this sort of thing.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>
|
|