LAVA 1.0 Content Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 I recently posted a LV 8.0 VI on another board, it was just a bundle by name example. Problem was they needed it in 7.1, so I did a save to previous version and reposted the VI. When reading over the thread I noticed the 8.0 VI was about 13 k and the 7.1 was about 23k. Anybody no why, just curious? Quote Link to comment
orko Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 I recently posted a LV 8.0 VI on another board, it was just a bundle by name example. Problem was they needed it in 7.1, so I did a save to previous version and reposted the VI. When reading over the thread I noticed the 8.0 VI was about 13 k and the 7.1 was about 23k. Anybody no why, just curious? From page 83 of the upgrade notes: http://www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/371780a.pdf ***************************** File Size Improvements Saving VIs from earlier versions of LabVIEW in LabVIEW 8.0 significantly decreases their file size. The file size of VIs you save in LabVIEW 8.0 is about 55% less than the file size of the same VIs in LabVIEW 7.1. The file size of LLBs in LabVIEW 8.0 is about 20% less than the file size of the same LLBs in LabVIEW 7.1. ***************************** Pretty cool stuff Joe (orko) Quote Link to comment
Jim Kring Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 From page 83 of the upgrade notes: http://www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/371780a.pdf***************************** File Size Improvements Saving VIs from earlier versions of LabVIEW in LabVIEW 8.0 significantly decreases their file size. The file size of VIs you save in LabVIEW 8.0 is about 55% less than the file size of the same VIs in LabVIEW 7.1. The file size of LLBs in LabVIEW 8.0 is about 20% less than the file size of the same LLBs in LabVIEW 7.1. ***************************** Pretty cool stuff Joe (orko) zlib compression has been around for years. It's about time. Quote Link to comment
Aitor Solar Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 But why the size reduction for VIs is much greater than for DLLs? DLLs are just a series of VIs, isn't it? Saludos, Aitor Quote Link to comment
Rolf Kalbermatter Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 But why the size reduction for VIs is much greater than for DLLs? DLLs are just a series of VIs, isn't it? Saludos, Aitor But LLBs already used a moderate compression algorithme. Not as good as zlib but still around 15 - 30%. Rolf Kalbermatter Quote Link to comment
JasonKing Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 But LLBs already used a moderate compression algorithme. Not as good as zlib but still around 15 - 30%.Rolf Kalbermatter Yes, VIs saved in LLBs were compressed (at least somewhat) with a home-brew compression algorithm. Stand-alone VIs were not. The new format essentially only saves the differences from the default state/instance of each object. This has given us the savings you see mentioned in the release notes. J Quote Link to comment
Aitor Solar Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Can this VI's compression affect the program's performance or speed, or is negligible? Saludos, Aitor Quote Link to comment
AnalogKid2DigitalMan Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 I do not foresee compression affecting program performance, since the vi's are loaded into memory off of disk prior to execution. Quote Link to comment
Aitor Solar Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 I do not foresee compression affecting program performance, since the vi's are loaded into memory off of disk prior to execution. Yes, but AFAIK that's not the case with dynamic called VIs. Could affect an application with continuous VI Server callings? Saludos, Aitor Quote Link to comment
AnalogKid2DigitalMan Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Yes, but AFAIK that's not the case with dynamic called VIs. Could affect an application with continuous VI Server callings?Saludos, Aitor Point well taken, perhaps there could be an effect Quote Link to comment
Aitor Solar Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Point well taken, perhaps there could be an effect Maybe. I have compared VIServer launching times for VIs in llbs and as independent files, in LV7.1.1. Independent files are launched about 3% faster, not a great deal compared with the rest of time-consuming actions. I still haven't checked it in LV8, though. Saludos, Aitor Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.