Working with LiVT: file size limits and performance

It’s been a bit more than half a year since I first published LiVT on Sourceforge. Since then, I have been able to add a few more algorithms, but there are still a few bugs waiting to be fixed.

All in all, feedback so far has been positive, but I am still hoping that someone will offer help to improve the project. One thing that has been mentioned repeadedly is the need to know the limits of the software regarding maximum file sizes.

Another relevant issue is the performance of LiVT, i.e. the time needed per unit area. This differs greatly from algorithm to algorithm. Furthermore, different settings in each algorithm will strongly influence processing times. Therefore, I have run all tests using the default settings with the exception of Cumulative Visibility where I used an angular resolution of 10° (instead of the 1° default). When changing processing parameters, processing times can change proportionally (e.g. for maximum radius or no. of direction in the radial Sky-View Factor algorithm), quadratic (e.g. for filter radius in the filter algorithms) or even faster (e.g. for the number of scales in Exaggerated Relief or Multi-Scale Integral Invariants). The test data set had a resolution of 1 m. Note that for the same total area, file size and processing times quadruple when resolution is doubled.

These are the results of the tests I have run:

Algorithm

maximum DTM file size

[million pixels]

performance (Intel Xeon 3.2 GHz, 64 bit)

[km2/min]

Filter (Laplacian of Gaussian)

132

30

Shaded Relief

30

15

Exaggerated Relief

30

 0.48

Sky-View Factor

131

0.96

Trend Removal

132

5.22

Local Relief Model

56

0.09

Local Dominance

90

2.22

Cumulative Visibility

90

0.25

Accessibility

132

1.45

Multi-Scale Integral Invariants

144

0.57

Openness

132

1.92

These tests were run on an 64 bit Intel Xeon at 3.2 GHz under Windows Vista. As a single instance of LiVT uses only one processor core anyway, the number of processors and cores does not play a role. Running the performance tests on other computers showed that 64 bit has some advantage over a 32 bit system: On a slightly faster clocked 32 bit AMD Phenom at 3.4 GHz (also under Windows Vista), performance was on average 87% of that on the 64 bit computer. Finally, just for fun I also tested a 32 bit Intel Atom processor (on a four or five year old EeePC) at 1.6 GHz under Windows XP. On that computer, performance was on average 18% of that on the 64 bit machine.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s