Great work guys!
Well, i rest my case regarding system building and will just refer to the PTGui benchmark test http://hdview.at/speedtest/results.html4.
:-) <evil grin> (now I just need to get better at using the software! :-) <not so evil grin>
Sure we can calculate how much scratch disk, ram, etc... but you are unlikely to add and remove hardware everytime you need to build a pano. at the end of the day you are going to need to build a system you can afford and that will fullfill your needs, at for that point the above formula is very handy, and then again next time you need to upgrade.
I think in my own case the ideal system is 3-4 arrays with 8 disks in each, not that I am likely to get a system like that due to $$$ constrains but I think that is what is required to make Giga-pano's or high detailed pano's in a reasonable quick time. Given the latest SSD disks available this would give me a transfer speed in excess of 2+ Gb/sec.
I wasn't going to comment on this but i can't resist - Ronald, your 6 disk raid is very fast there is no doubt it. But a multiple raid setup will be faster IMHO because the computer does not have to wait for it to read and write back to the same disk. Where as a multi disk set up where you move the data through the system will separate the tasks and is able to execute these simultanously AFAIK. We are probably splitting hairs here, but as a general throught the idea of multi-RAID setup should be faster.
Its really hard to compare these things but how about you run the test from the above benchmark, if you haven't done so already and let us know the result. thanks
When we later are able to use the GPU's for more then just previewing that will be greatly beneficial, however, the storage will always be the bottleneck.
No-one is suggesting adding and removing everytime you need to build a pano.
The formula and the step that follow it give us a clear indication of what to expect when given a certain set of photos and a certain amount of RAM. It allows for wise spending of money. If you know what set you normally have to process you can get an idea of how much RAM would be perfect.
The steps after the formula give some advice/choices on how to improve the performance of your machine.
What you say about multi-raid etc, connects to what has been said earlier in this thread about feeding data fast enough to the processor and making sure it can write it away again. A good indicator is the average CPU %, if it is mostly below 75% it is problably not being fed fast enough. In windows source-control can show what goes on.
I downloaded the speedtestzip and have a number of comments.
- Making panoramas is not about who is the fastest on a certain panorama. I assume it is more of interest to find out what decisions one can make regarding a new system that is to be bought or a existing system that is to be upgraded. The result sheet has a lot of data in it, what analysis can be made with it?
- Testing with 100-200 kb source files seems unrealistic to me. Larger files should be used to create a realistic situation. It will likely put more pressure on disk I/O and will ask for larger temp-directories
- The frontpage says you need 60 GB of temp-disk. Using the formula of Kreature i calculate 337*6,1*4 = 8 GB. Looking at my tempdirectory (on SSD) I see autopano does not even get close to that, problably due to the small file sizes. Anyhow, 60 GB is too high. Do you agree here?
- In my case I see my CPU running at 90-95% and autopano running at 70-85 %. This indicates there is not much that can be done on my system to speed things up as my CPU is nicely busy on all 4 cores/8 threads. At the moment I am not doing panoramas of 337 photos on a daily or even weekly basis. So businesslogic dictates to me not to invest for this size of panorama. Others will choose differently