Am 07.11.2012 19:19, schrieb Henning Scholland:
Am 07.11.2012 19:06, schrieb WanMil:
The profiling data shows that the CPU is most of the time busy with the pbf read and write routines, so I doubt that your disk is the bottleneck. From my experience profiling is a very time consuming (=> CPU consuming) task. So could it also be that the disk is not the bottleneck while you profile the application but it is the bottleneck while you don't profile it? (It's just a guess...) If I believe in TaskManager, splitter takes 17% CPU-usage. This means one core is completly busy. I have to correct this. splitter uses more cores while writing the tiles. HDD as bottleneck was only meant in general. I'm running splitter and mkgmap (and all input and output) on a SSD. But I think this is not typical. Maybe it would increase performance, if max-area keep smaller and splitter runs multiple times. E.g. I run two splitter with max-area=512. Will try this. I tried it and it wasn't better. It tooks 10 min longer (1:30 to 1:20 h). Reducing max-area from 1024 to 512 doesn't save enough RAM, that two splitter instances have enough RAM. So I think it would be more effective to use threading also in analysing the polygons e.g one threat for reading pbf and another one for checking the object, don't know if this is possible.
Henning