Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I have a few questions regarding Caching elements using the BGEO format. 

Im wondering what the advantages or disadvantages are when using the bgeo.sc compression vs bgeo without compression.

Are there other benefits to using sc, other than smaller file sizes? also are there disadvantages, such as it taking longer for playback because of the compression on larger files? 

Lastly are there advantages or disadvantages in using other compression formats like gz and others?

Appreciate any help on this topic.

Thanks,

Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have never thought too much about it but I have used both of them. 

Useless to say I almost never had problems with both of them. The only thing you may notice is a little difference with the compressed format, which is faster in loading/writing the caches being smaller file sizes.

 

I think is worth to mention that I had an issue just once using the compressed format and packed disk primitives. Something wasn't working correctly using compressed caches made in Windows and rendered in Linux machines. But I can't be 100% sure since at the time the farm was new and had several other issues. I just know that if I was using the non-compressed files I was able to render this instanced buildings but not with the compressed one.

 

8 hours ago, rolfcoppter said:

Lastly are there advantages or disadvantages in using other compression formats like gz and others?

I have no experience with them :) 

Edited by Andrea
english

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rolfcoppter said:

Im wondering what the advantages or disadvantages are when using the bgeo.sc compression vs bgeo without compression.

Are there other benefits to using sc, other than smaller file sizes? also are there disadvantages, such as it taking longer for playback because of the compression on larger files? 

All depends on whether your actual data processing (the one you perform, not SOPs/DOPs in general) are I/O bound or CPU bound. Compression just trades off one for another. Decompressing takes time, the question is is it less than the time difference between reads of compressed and uncompressed files. Depending on your hardware AND processing the answer may be different.

In case you can afford storing cache on SSD disk, most probably compression doesn't make sense (albeit the cost of *.sc isn't big anyway and increasing storage by say 20% is tempting). The slower I/O is (like network storage over the ethernet), the better compression will perform - given the sizeof(files) is high enough and  timeof(processing) is low enough.

10 hours ago, rolfcoppter said:

Lastly are there advantages or disadvantages in using other compression formats like gz and others?

Same thing. It's a matter of tradeoffs. *.sc compresses/decompresses faster for the price of bigger files. *.gz/*.bzip2 are smaller but also way slower for writing and reading. If you save the cache for later reuse and don't mind decompressing it beforehand, *.gz files might be fine. Practically speaking though disk space is so cheap these days, no one cares. Don't bother unless you really have to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×