- Posts: 5712
- Thank you received: 0
Material Settings Glitch
6 years 4 months ago #171110
by phillc54
Here ya go.
Replied by phillc54 on topic Material Settings Glitch
snowgoer540 wrote: Any chance you could attach the materials file too? I could give your experiment a go on my machine, see what happens.
Here ya go.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171113
by rodw
Replied by rodw on topic Material Settings Glitch
It may not be a valid test. How big is your material file in bytes.?
what sector size does fdisk /l report?
The sector size in Linux is 4096 or 8192 bytes. So on a file read a complete sector is retrieved from the HDD and held in an internal buffer. (We do buffered IO with PC's right?) So unless the entries are more than a sector apart its not really valid. Also seek times come into play so if the sectors are sequential, the read times will be faster than if they are random and a few sectors apart. BUt SSD's might come into play here.
Very early in the piece, I had my M66 waiting for one second and that was not enough so I changed it to 2 seconds. Provided you load valid tools, this will not hold up performance because they will be found quicker than the max time allowed..
what sector size does fdisk /l report?
The sector size in Linux is 4096 or 8192 bytes. So on a file read a complete sector is retrieved from the HDD and held in an internal buffer. (We do buffered IO with PC's right?) So unless the entries are more than a sector apart its not really valid. Also seek times come into play so if the sectors are sequential, the read times will be faster than if they are random and a few sectors apart. BUt SSD's might come into play here.
Very early in the piece, I had my M66 waiting for one second and that was not enough so I changed it to 2 seconds. Provided you load valid tools, this will not hold up performance because they will be found quicker than the max time allowed..
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171114
by rodw
Replied by rodw on topic Material Settings Glitch
EDIT: This is definitely NOT a valid test. That file is only 38 k long so after the initial read, it is all buffered. Even back in the good old floppy days, with 512 byte sectors, the data is less than 1 sector long...
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171115
by phillc54
Replied by phillc54 on topic Material Settings Glitch
The materials are read into a dict, so are held in memory.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171116
by rodw
Replied by rodw on topic Material Settings Glitch
Has that always been the case? I just wonder why I had problems in the first place.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171117
by phillc54
Replied by phillc54 on topic Material Settings Glitch
Yep, since the materials were first included.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171118
by phillc54
Replied by phillc54 on topic Material Settings Glitch
It is possible that I changed the handshaking, not 100% sure.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171119
by rodw
Strange. its a very small data structure compared with some of the file processing I've done with Python recently. I'll have to check my file size when I'm near my machine again. I don't understand why it took more than 1 sec back then.
Replied by rodw on topic Material Settings Glitch
phillc54 wrote: Yep, since the materials were first included.
Strange. its a very small data structure compared with some of the file processing I've done with Python recently. I'll have to check my file size when I'm near my machine again. I don't understand why it took more than 1 sec back then.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
6 years 4 months ago #171120
by rodw
Ahh.
But the dict should be indexed internally surely?
Replied by rodw on topic Material Settings Glitch
phillc54 wrote: It is possible that I changed the handshaking, not 100% sure.
Ahh.
But the dict should be indexed internally surely?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.088 seconds
