[info-performer] Antwort: info-performer Jan 09 2005

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Holger.Haemmerle++at++ruecker.de
Date: 01/10/2005 09:36:36


Hi,
the problem is that multiprocessing need more pfBuffer's.
One solution, change to 64-bit.

Best Regards

Holger Hämmerle
Leiter simulationsgestützte Planung und Entwicklung

______________________________________________________________________

     Rücker GmbH
     Niederlassung Weingarten

     88250 Weingarten

     Tel.:     +49 (0)751 / 36216 - 60     Visit us:
http://www.ruecker.de
     Fax:     +49 (0)751 / 36216 - 99     Mail to:
holger.haemmerle++at++ruecker.de
     Mobil   +49 (0)175 / 43 28 442
______________________________________________________________________

                                                                           
             info-performer++at++sg
             i.com
             (info-performer An
             Mailing List) allan++at++sgi.com
             Gesendet von: Kopie
             owner-info-perfor
             mer-digest++at++perfor Thema
             mer.engr.sgi.com info-performer Jan 09 2005
                                                                           
                                                                           
             10.01.2005 11:19
                                                                           
                                                                           
              Bitte antworten
                    an
             info-performer++at++pe
             rformer.engr.sgi.
                    com
                                                                           
                                                                           

Welcome to the info-performer mailing list DIGEST for January 09 2005

List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/software/performer/
    Send Submissions to: info-performer++at++sgi.com
    Add/Remove requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

Message Subjects:

    [info-performer] Re: help with pfMemory and PFSHAREDSIZE

******************************************************************************

 From: Steve Satterfield <steve++at++nist.gov>
 Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:01:20 -0500
 Subject: [info-performer] Re: help with pfMemory and PFSHAREDSIZE

Thanks to Jimmy Wang of SGI, I got a hint of why my application runs on an
Octane2 and Linux but not on Onyx4. It seems to be related to multi
processing
on the larger machines.

My application uses perfly and a locally developed file loader.

This command will run on Octane2 but not on Onyx4:

    setenv PFSHAREDSIZE 1000000000
    setenv PFSHAREDBASE 0x20000000
    perfly demo.seq

However, this command will run on the Onyx4

    perfly -m 0 demo.seq

So now my question is why does multiprocessing reduce the apparent size of
the
shared memory? Do the various stages of Performer copy parts or all of the
scene graph? Is there anything I can to other than restrict the Onxy4 to a
single process?

Thanks,
Steve

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Steve Satterfield wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am trying to run a N32 Performer application on an Onyx4 but it fails
with
> the pfMemory error:
>
> PF Fatal/Resource: pfMemory::new() Unable to allocate 59576
bytes from arena 0x20000000.
> Try using pfSharedArenaSize() or env PFSHAREDSIZE
> to increase the arena size
> (currently 976562.50 KBytes) and check for adequate setrlimit()
> values and available space on swap (or pfTmpDir()).
>
> When I run this application, I have
> PFSHAREDSIZE set to 1000000000
> PFSHAREDBASE set to 0x20000000
>
> The Onyx4 is 4 CPU/4GB memory running 6.5.24 and OpenGL Performer 3.1.1
>
> This same application will however run well on an Octane2 with 2
CPU/512Mbytes
> memory running 6.5.24 and OpenGL Performer 3.1.
>
> Additionally, this application also fails on an Onyx3 with 24CPU/24GB
memory
> running 6.5.24 and OpenGL Performer 3.1.1. It also fails on a different 8
> CPU/8GB memory Onyx4.
>
> Since it runs on a desktop machine but not on larger machines, I assume
there
> must be something configured differently about the larger machines.
>
> Can you give me any ideas on where to look for differences in the larger
> machines?
>
> I have compared the values of "systune shm". The larger machines have
larger
> values. As a test, I changed the Onyx4 systune shm parameters to match
the
> Octane systune shm values, but the application continues to fail.
>
> Thank you for any help you can provide.
>
> -Steve
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Steven G. Satterfield steve++at++nist.gov
> NIST (voice) 301 975-5637
> 100 Bureau Dr, Stop 8911 (fax) 301 975-3218
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8911
>
>

******************************************************************************


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 10 2005 - 09:33:15 PST