Thanks Brian,<div><br></div><div>I'll see what we can do about it.</div><div><br></div><div>Seb</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brian Corrie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bcorrie@sfu.ca" target="_blank">bcorrie@sfu.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Seb,<br>
<br>
I have asked the researcher, but in the mean time one can create the problem by simply generating a file of dimension 698x693x665 (Zeros.raw) with all Zeros in it. It seems to be independent of what is in the data file...<br>
<br>
I load it with the "Raw (binary) Files" reader setting the dimensions as appropriate and scalar type to unsigned char. I then apply the Threshold filter as in the attached image and voila, I get the memory usage pattern from the second image.<br>
<br>
I can give you the Zeros file, but it is probably faster to generate it than download. Let me know if you want the file... 8-)<br>
<br>
Brian<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 14/12/2012 2:33 PM, Sebastien Jourdain wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
This definitely seems to be a set of bugs.<br>
Can you share your data privately with us ? So we can track that down ?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Seb<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Brian Corrie <<a href="mailto:bcorrie@sfu.ca" target="_blank">bcorrie@sfu.ca</a><br></div><div><div class="h5">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:bcorrie@sfu.ca" target="_blank">bcorrie@sfu.ca</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hello all,<br>
<br>
I was wondering if someone could provide me with some advice. I am<br>
trying to work with a large-ish (not really that large) volume data<br>
set. It is a 698x69x665 unsigned byte data set (~320MB).<br>
<br>
When working with Paraview (3.98.0-RC1) operations on the data set<br>
are quite cumbersome and relatively simple operations cause all<br>
sorts of havoc. I am wondering if there is something odd with my set<br>
up or are my expectations of interacting with a largeish volume data<br>
set too high. The specs for my workstation are:<br>
<br>
Windows 7 Pro, 64 bit, 2 X5690 processors (12 cores) at 3.47 GHz, 24<br>
GB of memory, nVidia Quadro 6000 graphics card. Pretty loaded...<br>
<br>
Rendering the data set with surface or volume is relatively<br>
interactive. When I try to apply other common filters (clip,<br>
threshold, isosurface) strange things occur:<br>
<br>
1) Applying a Clip filter causes Paraview to eventually consume 100%<br>
of the memory on my machine (24 GB). The computation of the filter<br>
runs forever, and I essentially have to kill off Paraview (the<br>
filter application doesn't complete after waiting several minutes).<br>
<br>
2) Applying a Threshold filter causes the same to occur. Basically<br>
causes memory usage to climb to 100% (24 GB). The filter never<br>
completes (at least not before my patience runs out 8-)<br>
<br>
3) Applying a Contour threshold works but strange things happen<br>
after isosurface creation. It creates a large polygon mesh (9M<br>
cells). With that said, memory footprint is still quite small. When<br>
interacting it renders using LOD so it is interactive. When I stop<br>
interacting it takes a couple of seconds to render at full<br>
resolution and another two seconds or so after it reaches full<br>
resolution LOD before I can interact with the application again.<br>
Approximately 4 seconds between stopping one interaction with the<br>
visualization (e.g. rotating the model) and being able to interact<br>
with the application again. Performance/interaction wise that is OK.<br>
The main problem is that only half the data set is rendered (see the<br>
image attached) at full LOD. There is no clip plane in the pipeline<br>
and yet half the data is missing in the display. The image should be<br>
a full sphere. When rendered at the lower LOD the entire data set is<br>
displayed, when rendered at full LOD the data is not.<br>
<br>
The above does not seem normal. The data set is large, but not huge.<br>
I certainly wouldn't expect the memory usage to spike to 24 GB and<br>
the rendering with the isosurface is very odd.<br>
<br>
Any advice from more experienced Paraview users? Should I get better<br>
performance/results? I would have thought so, are my expectations<br>
our to lunch? Or is this a bug that I should report?<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br></div></div>
Powered by <a href="http://www.kitware.com" target="_blank">www.kitware.com</a> <<a href="http://www.kitware.com" target="_blank">http://www.kitware.com</a>><div class="im"><br>
<br>
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at<br>
<a href="http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html" target="_blank">http://www.kitware.com/<u></u>opensource/opensource.html</a><br>
<br>
Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at:<br>
<a href="http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView" target="_blank">http://paraview.org/Wiki/<u></u>ParaView</a><br>
<br>
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:<br>
<a href="http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview" target="_blank">http://www.paraview.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/paraview</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></blockquote>
</blockquote></div><br></div>