You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Do not run ggobi with a nice value
2. Do a 2D tour of a example data
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
GGobi just consum anything it can, slowing X with it. On a single core
computer, I can't even open new application while it is running. The tour
speed, only change, I guess, the pace of calculation, not the number of
frame computed by second. This was verified with three different computers
(all running Fedora 11 Linux i386 or x86_64, from old Pentium M to modern
Core 2 Duo, with or without graphic acceleration card)
What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
GGobi 2.1.7 on Fedora 11 x86_64
Please provide any additional information below.
The work arround I found is to wrap the ggobi executable by a shell with a
nice command.
What would be nice is that you can set a pause between frame (between 0 and
0.1, or limiting frame per second i.e. automatic pause calculation) and
that you have the option of sticking the pace of calculation to frame or
not (in optimization, especially, you would compute N iteration of the
algorithm for one image).
Actually, GGobi is taking, on my dual core E8400 + GeForce G9800GT (and
nvidia proprietary driver), 54% CPU for itself and 43% for X, if I turn
compiz on it's: 44% GGobi, 47% X, 10% Compiz.
It would be awesome, but I guess, require a huge development, compared to
the above, that GGobi use 3D native acceleration, and, may be, GPGPU
because when I load the actual data I need to play with, frame rate drop to
1 FPS :)
Anyway thank you guys for the work you're doing. This is a great software.
Fade
Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 27 Oct 2009 at 7:20
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
[email protected]
on 27 Oct 2009 at 7:20The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: