Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] platform independence (32 & 64bitwindows)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] platform independence (32 & 64bitwindows)
From: आशीष वर्मन् (ashish.varman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-18 12:50:57

Hi

Based on Robert and Francois's answers below, I will be going ahead to 
test eos portable archives first.  Our data is mostly all vectors of 
doubles.  I suppose in case of any issues, I can always fall back on 
text_archive, perhaps with a performance penalty.  I will try to revert 
back when I have actual results available regarding size and performance.

Yours Sincerely
Ashish Varman

On 18-07-2013 01:17, Francois Mauger wrote:
> Hi ??????,
>
> We have used eos portable archives for years for the storage of
> terabytes of experimental and simulation physics data with floats,
> doubles (including NaNs and non finite values) and of course signed and
> unsigned integers of various sizes, both on 32bits and 64bits archs on
> various kind of machines (many Linux flavors and a few MacOS X). AFAIK,
> eos version 5.0 works with Boost 1.49 but it works prefectly for us with
> Boost 1.53 (I suspect it is ok for 1.5X too).
>
> In conclusion I strongly recommend to use eos stuff. Should this bunch
> of classes fail to work with some future versions of Boost, I'm pretty
> sure that some people (at least Christian Pfligersdorffer the author or
> I modestly) would do the best to provide fixes.
>
> best regards
>
> frc
> --
>
>
>
>   >>On 17/07/2013 20:36, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> ???? ?????? wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> We are using boost serialization our product which was 32bit only till
>>> now.  Now we have started building it on 64bit as well.  On finding
>>> that boost::binary_archive is not platform independent, we seem to
>>> have 2 options:
>>>
>>>       1. Use text_archive - (but are worried about performance since the
>>> serialized data is approx 500MB even after gzip compression)
>>>
>>>       2. Use the eos portable archive - (but it is updated only till
>>> boost 1.49.  We are using 1.53)
>>>
>>> So my questions are:
>>>
>>>       1. One (and only one) of our archives created by our 32 bit
>>> executable is successfully read in by the 64 bit executable while the
>>> rest throw exception on reading the archive signature.  If the
>>> platform is encoded in the signature, why is that one archive being
>>> read in successfully.
>> I couldn't say - maybe you just got lucky.
>>
>>>       2.  Which of the above two approaches would be better
>> If performance is an issue, I would try them both.  It shouldn't be too
>> tough to run a test.
>>
>>> and why.
>> Hmmm - It's hard for me to know which would be better.  Note that
>> the portable binary archive doesn't support floating point values
>>
>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> Adresse/address:
>     Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire de Caen (UMR 6534)
>     ENSICAEN
>     6, Boulevard du Marechal Juin
>     14050 CAEN Cedex
>     FRANCE
> Courriel/e-mail: mauger_at_[hidden]
> Tél./phone:      [phone]
> Fax:             02 31 45 25 49 / ([phone]
>
>>> Yours Sincerely
>>> Ashish Varman
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boost-users mailing list
>> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>>
>