logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] splitter r247

From Gerd Petermann gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com on Thu Nov 29 19:14:53 GMT 2012

Hi Lambertus,

thanks for the input. Yes, the log shows that the keep-complete functions require more then 5GB.
This is okay, splitter has to save more information for this compared to r202.
If you have more available heap, e.g. -Xmx7500m, you could use try a higher max-areas value to reduce 
run time (e.g. max-areas=512 or higher)  
If you want to help me optimizing the heap consumption, please execute splitter r247 with
java -agentlib:hprof=cpu=samples,depth=20 -XX:+PrintGCDetails -Xmx ....and send me both the splitter log and the generated java.hprof[.txt]


Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:41:18 +0100
From: osm at na1400.info
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] splitter r247

On 29/11/2012 13:31, GerdP wrote:
> Do you use the same parameters for both versions?
Not entirely. Compared to r202 I upped the -Xmx value and added for r247:
--keep-complete --overlap=0
The rest of the commandline remained the same:
java -Xmx6000m -ea -jar splitter.jar --output=xml --keep-complete 
--overlap=0 --no-trim --mapid=1 --max-nodes=1500000 
--write-kml=initial.kml --geonames-file=cities15000.zip 
> In that case r247 should
> not
> require much more or less memory compared to r202.
Well, all I know for sure is that 4G was enough for r202 but not for 
r247. But the difference could be small if r202 was close to the 4G already.
> If you have the complete logs, please send them to me, I like to know in
> which phase
> it is likely to have memory problems.
The log for r247 is attached.  I'll run r202 again and send it's output 
as well.

mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20121129/7e3799ea/attachment.html 

More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list