AWARE [SYSTEMS]
AWare Systems, Home TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
January 2016

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



New Datamatrix section



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2016.01.25 18:25 "[Tiff] OpenMP enabled libtiff", by Aaron Boxer
[...]
2016.01.27 19:55 "Re: [Tiff] OpenMP enabled libtiff", by Bob Friesenhahn
2016.01.29 13:28 "Re: [Tiff] OpenMP enabled libtiff", by Aaron Boxer
2016.01.29 14:46 "Re: [Tiff] OpenMP enabled libtiff", by Bob Friesenhahn
[...]

2016.01.29 13:28 "Re: [Tiff] OpenMP enabled libtiff", by Aaron Boxer

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:

Thanks, Bob. So, are you saying that as TIFF is currently designed, memory mapping is beneficial

This was my experience on windows: turning off memory mapping when using libtiff degraded performance.

The memory mapping does eliminate system call and access time overheads associated with seeking, as long as data in the same MMU page (e.g. 4k block) has been touched before. This is why libtiff memory maps for reads by default under Unix.

Before making comprehensive decisions about degraded performance, try the use case where a large sequence of files is accessed in order (each accessed once for each traversal) and the total amount of file data is much larger than the amount of memory in your system. In that case, do you see the same win or do you now see a penalty which looks very much like what happens when the system runs out of memory ("swapping")?

Thanks. This is exactly the work flow I am interested in: tens of thousands of ~10 MB TIFFs, accessed sequentially. Only 4 files would be open at a given time. So, even though the files get closed, are you suggesting I will see swapping in this case?

>

> My other question is: why is unix and windows treated differently in >> tifflib? mmap call allows sharing of mapping between different file

handles, while on windows this is turned off. I think it would be nice to have on windows.

I don't know why this is. Memory mapping works fine for reads under Windows although the maximum contigious map size is likely to be smaller than on Unix type systems. It does not work so well for writes due to stupidity and missing certain useful POSIX functions like ftruncate(). Many functions which might otherwise be useful do not support large files or behave in much stupider ways (e.g. actually write zeros to the filesystem rather than create a hole) than on Unix type systems.

Interesting, Unfortunately windows is still a necessary evil.

Aaron

>
> Bob
> --
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

>