I am filing this as a bug (but please feel free to change it to nuissance / trivial / etc as appropriate) because ristretto consumes in excess of 10x the size of an image when loading an image. Image source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Iridescent_Glory_of_Nearby_Helix_Nebula.jpg (8.6MB) Save image then open in ristretto. Other than taking almost a minute on a Core 2 Duo machine with 2GB RAM, upon finally loading, RAM usage is immense: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 5695 robert 20 0 761m 745m 7872 R 80 37.0 1:18.93 ristretto Much less if ristretto feels the need to do a refresh of the image during initial load you see RAM usage spike to twice this. Strace made available for troubleshooting purposes. If ristretto is going to market itself as a minimal image viewer, it ought to be minimal. On a brand new netbook with 512MB RAM this would probably cause intense swap thrashing. For what it's worth, when loading same image in GIMP: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 3829 robert 20 0 721m 653m 10m S 0 32.4 1:16.35 gimp-2.6 Other than both programs using too much RAM, Ristretto should not be using more than (much less anywhere near) the amount of RAM a full-featured image editor does.
Er, not 10x, my math is off (it's morning). Strace was too large to attach, so see http://www.puresimplicity.net/~delahunt/ristretto.strace if you dare (11MB).
FWIW PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 7489 robert 20 0 95840 35m 20m S 0 1.8 0:03.55 gwenview Also PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 7606 robert 20 0 750m 304m 7728 R 93 15.1 0:09.18 gqview (Will file GQView bug)
Yeah, this is because ristretto loads it at 100% quality - which is silly. 16000 * 16000 * 24 = 6 GB. I am working on a way that it only renders images at the quality required to show the contents of the image on-screen. And re-render pieces that need to be viewed at a higher quality. Unfortunately, all attempts I made so far have failed. I intend to fix it before 0.1.0 though.
(In reply to comment #3) > Yeah, this is because ristretto loads it at 100% quality - which is silly. > > 16000 * 16000 * 24 = 6 GB. > > I am working on a way that it only renders images at the quality required to > show the contents of the image on-screen. And re-render pieces that need to be > viewed at a higher quality. > > Unfortunately, all attempts I made so far have failed. I intend to fix it > before 0.1.0 though. Wrong calc: (a 0 off) 256MP*24bit = 758MB
It no longer does that since it does not allow rendering at full quality.