On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Warren Baird > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks Johannes and Jose, >> >> Just to make sure I understand - the size setting in the options impacts not >> just how much RAM Is allocated for thumbnails when DT is running - but also >> how many thumbnails are cached to disk? That seems a little odd to me, >> since I have a *LOT* more disk than I have RAM, and I'd be happy to allocate >> 10x or even 100x as much disk to caching thumbnails as I would RAM. Has >> any thought been given to that? > > Yes, it is a 1:1 image of what is in your RAM
no, the stuff on disk is compressed (jpg) so it's even smaller, but even slower to access. not sure we store the hi-res thumbs at all. the cache version i-1 had a lot more thumbnails stored on disk (all that ever appeared) and needed to sync that every time you evict stuff from memory. that meant writing to disk.. which was unacceptably slow. the new cache is just so much faster because it doesn't need to worry about going to disk during runtime. if it turns out we absolutely need to go to disk (as i said, i'm quite happy with my medium size collection as it is) it would probably need some careful thought and make good use of the linux kernel caches/mmap to avoid writing to disk whenever possible. j. > >> If I get a chance tonight I'll try building the latest from GIT and try out >> the exif thumbs. >> >> I'll also try the cache_compression setting... > > This will increase the amount of available slots to store thumbnails ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
