Hi Lambertus, thanks for the input. Yes, the log shows that the keep-complete functions require more then 5GB. This is okay, splitter has to save more information for this compared to r202. If you have more available heap, e.g. -Xmx7500m, you could use try a higher max-areas value to reduce run time (e.g. max-areas=512 or higher) If you want to help me optimizing the heap consumption, please execute splitter r247 with java -agentlib:hprof=cpu=samples,depth=20 -XX:+PrintGCDetails -Xmx ....and send me both the splitter log and the generated java.hprof[.txt] ciao, Gerd Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:41:18 +0100 From: osm@na1400.info To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] splitter r247 On 29/11/2012 13:31, GerdP wrote:
Do you use the same parameters for both versions?
Not entirely. Compared to r202 I upped the -Xmx value and added for r247: --keep-complete --overlap=0 The rest of the commandline remained the same: java -Xmx6000m -ea -jar splitter.jar --output=xml --keep-complete --overlap=0 --no-trim --mapid=1 --max-nodes=1500000 --write-kml=initial.kml --geonames-file=cities15000.zip planet-latest.osm.pbf
In that case r247 should not require much more or less memory compared to r202.
Well, all I know for sure is that 4G was enough for r202 but not for r247. But the difference could be small if r202 was close to the 4G already.
If you have the complete logs, please send them to me, I like to know in which phase it is likely to have memory problems.
The log for r247 is attached. I'll run r202 again and send it's output as well. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev