[GRASS-user] Slow import of GHSL

[Nikos Alexandris]

* Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com> [2017-03-16 22:06:12 +0100]:

>On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Nikos Alexandris <nik at nikosalexandris.net>
>wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>
>>>>> With the p1 tif and GRASS db on the same spinning HDD, and
>>>>> 6 other heavy processes constantly reading from and writing to that
>same
>>>>> HDD, r.in.gdal took 2h 13min to import the p1 tif. 360 MB as input and
>1.5
>>>>> GB as output is not that heavy on disk IO. Most of the time is spent
>>>>> decompressing input and compressing output.
>>
>>
>> Is it an 10000rpm disk?
>
>I think you are on the wrong track, disk IO does not matter here. It was a
>7200rpm disk, and the output of r.in.gdal was about 1.5 GB. It takes only
>seconds, not hours to write 1.5 GB to a HDD.
>
>>
>>>> p2 is a harder one!
>>>
>>>
>>> export GDAL_CACHEMAX=10000
>>> gdal_translate -co "COMPRESS=LZW"
>>> GHS_BUILT_LDS1990_GLOBE_R2016A_3857_38_v1_0_p2.tif p2_test.tif
>
>> Also related?  GTIFF_DIRECT_IO, GTIFF_VIRTUAL_MEM_IO
>
>Again, I think you are on the wrong track, disk IO does not matter here.
>And according to the GDAL documentation, GTIFF_DIRECT_IO,
>GTIFF_VIRTUAL_MEM_IO apply only to reading un-compressed TIFF files.
>
>>
>>> finishes in 28 minutes.
>>
>> Impressive!
>
>Hardware does not really matter here. To be precise, the difference between
>GDAL 1.11.4 and 2.1.3 is impressive, thanks to the efforts of the GDAL
>development team.
>
>Regarding GDAL 2.1.3, profiling might tell why gdal_translate is so much
>faster than GRASS r.in.gdal.

Thanks Markus.  Yes, on the wrong track.  Useful lessons learned.

Nikos

ps- Working in a restricted environment (as in: I cannot install
whatsoever I need) is not easy.- Sure, I can possibly use a VM or
similar...