| Message |
Details |
Quoting primetime21:
Quote:
I'm sorry it bothers you so much that this happened that you felt the need to make a whole additional post about it.
The reason it bothers me is that I have seen what multiposting can lead to. Some people answer in one thread, some in the other. People may put in time answering questions that have already been answered in the other thread. If both threads grow, it can lead to a lot of confusion with different answers in different threads. | Posted: Topic Replies: 26, Topic Views: 11596 |
 |
Thanks ObiKen!
Interesting results! I hadn't actually timed Laplacian vs. Wavelet. I saw that Wavelet was faster, but I didn't realize that it was that much faster. Anyway, parallel processing really speeds up things when applied to suitable tasks.
For those who wish to find cover scans in their collection that are candidates for re-scanning, my tool CoverInfo is - in my opinion - a better place to start than SharpnessCheck. The physical attributes tell a great deal about the cover scans. It's really after one has addressed the obvious candidates there that it's worth trying to find blurry scans with SharpnessCheck. I would wish that it was more effective than it is in that regard. Still, it is not totally without merit.
Have you compared the results to see which function that seems best in finding blurry scans? Even though the results are different, I find it hard to say that one is more efficient than the other. How about you?
One program that I think could really benefit from parallel processing is Database Repair. I wish I could write my own version, but unfortunately I neither have the info nor the tools to do so. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 11036 |
|
Just a little PS regarding CPUs, cores and threads, so nobody is misinformed because of me.
I was under the impression that it's always 2 threads per core. And that seems to be true for AMD CPUs. When it comes to Intel, it's not always quite that simple. However, as far as I can tell, the maximum number of threads that any PC can run is (currently) 32. That would be with Intel i9 and AMD 7950. Workstations and servers may have more powerful CPUs, but I assume that you don't run this program on one of those.
There are a couple of other CPU makes, but the only other one that you're likely to come across is Qualcomm, and as far as I can tell, none of them can run more than 12 threads.
Anyway, the default setting of 99 for max number of tasks in SharpnessCheck is unnecessarily high. It is just a way of indication that there is no practical limit on the number of tasks. Any setting over the the CPUs capacity will just result in the program using all available.
If anyone is actually running this on a workstation or a server, I would love to hear what kind of performance you get. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 11036 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
Is this the scenario you describe?
Yes!  | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 10379 |
|
Quoting specise_8472:
Quote:
I bumped up Tasks to 30 and works without error. Must be something to do with the way Windows handles tasks.
5000 images in 5secs. From OneDrive, not local.
Good, but if you get that error again (or any error), I'd be interested. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 11036 |
|
In that case you may have to delete those files manually. They are:
OnlineList.dod
OnlineListSel.dod
You find them in %localappdata%\DVD Profiler
They will be automatically recreated. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5997 |
|
| @primetime21: You have an answer in the Desktop Technical Support forum. Why post the same question in two forums? | Posted: Topic Replies: 26, Topic Views: 11596 |
|
This is usually caused by a corrupt online profile list. Try this:
Select 'Online / Refresh Online Profile List' which holding down Ctrl. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5997 |
|
After the latest server update the following has been observed:
- The site now runs HTTPS
- iOS collection upload works again (and probably Android too)
- The "Severe Error in '/' Application" seems to no longer appear when watching some profiles in your uploaded collection.
Has the problem with adding new birth years also been fixed? I haven't been able to check. Perhaps someone that's more into birthyears can check that?
Anyway, it's really positive to see that at least the web side functions are being updated. DVD Profiler isn't dead quite yet, despite what some people seem to think. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 10379 |
|
CoverInfo 1.6
Updated with parallel processing for faster cover info checking. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 37381 |
|
Quoting specise_8472:
Quote:
Works well, but just my system, even at 1 thread still errors. But cancel error and finishes.
So no drama, as long as it works for everyone ok.
Still, I would very much like to know what that error is. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 11036 |
|
TurboCLT 1.4.3
Updated to use https against Invelos. The old version seems to work, too, but it may be a bit sluggish. | Posted: Topic Replies: 71, Topic Views: 28413 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
DvdpScheduler 3.1.5
Fixed a bug in Repair where DvdpScheduler did not always sense that the repair was finished.
Well, that ended up in the wrong thread. But that's water under the bridge now, since there is a later version of that tool, announced in the correct thread. So, please ignore!  | Posted: Topic Replies: 71, Topic Views: 28413 |
|
| So, did you try the new version? | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 11036 |
|
SharpnessCheck 1.1.0
It looks like I was wrong. I don't think it is a memory leak. It probably is a hardware issue, sort of. Too powerful hardware. I ran some tests, and with my 6 core cpu (running 12 tasks), the program topped about 1,3 GB memory. That means that if you have a cpu with more than 6 cores, you could possibly hit that 2 GB limit.
I have made two changes. First of all I have compiled for 64 bit. Secondly, I have added a setting where you can limit the number of tasks used. By default the program uses all it can get, but you can limit it if needed.
@species_8472, I hope that this solves the problem.
PS. If anyone actually wants the 32 bit version, let me know. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 11036 |
|
That’s odd. I have run the program quite a few times and I haven’t seen this error.
Still, unless it’s a hardware issue (which I doubt), it would seem that I have a memory leak. I normally compile for "Any CPU", which I believe limits the usable memory to 2 GB. That should be more than enough.
I’ll take a look and see if I can spot any possible memory leak. I can also re-compile for 64 bit only. I don’t think very many people run on 32 bit anymore. That will remove any memory restraints. But that’s rather hiding the problem instead of solving it.
Out of curiosity, does this error occur every time you run the program? | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 11036 |
|