Pinga v14 Not multithreaded

Hakker said on 10/15/2018

Compared to earlier version multithreading doesn't seem to be functioning on my AMD 1950x and appears to only use 1 thread.

Hakker said on 10/15/2018

Just to add before that I was on Pinga 0.6 and that did have multithreading. So somewhere along the line it broke down.

Also a feature request for Pinga is to have a source directory and optional with a checkbox beside it or something a destination directory. That way you could either drag and drop but also just select it within the program and decide it's destination.

Cédric Louvrier said on 10/15/2018

Compared to earlier version multithreading doesn't seem to be functioning

did you run comparisons with same options? if yes, how much is difference?

Hakker said on 10/16/2018

I tried both lossy and lossless png on s7 and s9 and it was from 7,5-8sec to 170-180sec so also just one thread just went to 100% The rest were idling at 0-2% depending on background tasks running.

Cédric Louvrier said on 10/16/2018

can you provide results?

Hakker said on 10/17/2018

System AMD Threadripper 1950x @ 3.8 GHz & 32 GB DDR4 3200 memory Win10 Pinga v14 with Pinga 0.98.33 on the back because I hoped it would solve the multithreading compared to the normal V14 but both show the same results.

 Pinga V14
 380 Paletted, png (max)
 529,848 bytes (22%) saved in 22,625s
 811.879 bytes (9%) saved in 75,187s
 24 reductions
 320.255 bytes (53%) saved in 38,391s
 Pinga V06
 380 Paletted
 538.736 bytes (22%) saved in 4,375s
 863.203 bytes (10%) saved in 3,266s
 24 reductions
 320.989 bytes (53%) saved in 2s I created screendumps as well.






Hakker said on 10/17/2018

Just to add more info what I forgot.

Pinga v06 was how it was delivered from the site at the time (crc32 - 4C3663B1)

I tested the 0.9.33 Pingo version on the Pinga v6 client and that did give me multithreading. So the problem is within the Pinga client and not within Pingo.

Only tested the 380 palleted one which was 535.673 bytes (22%) saved in 1,953s.

Cédric Louvrier said on 10/17/2018

according to your screenshot, you disabled the multithreading (do: multi). it helps for speed, but such difference between this (multi) and that (no multi) is definitely unexpected — on my slow testing machine, i get 2.886s with mt and 5.522s without

Hakker said on 10/17/2018

ok verified it works. Didn't think multi was multi-threading. I though it was more in the line of creating multiple version eg. png and jpg.

That said the 1950x has 32 threads so yes it makes a lot difference.

comment this