Eiger: Difference between revisions

Eiger (view source)

Revision as of 23:37, 12 March 2016

442 bytes added , 12 March 2016

→‎A benchmark: add CBF timings

Kay

Bureaucrats

2,652

edits

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Any comparisons should be based on a common dataset. I downloaded from https://www.dectris.com/datasets.html their latest dataset
-ftp://dectris.com/EIGER_16M_Nov2015.tar.bz2 (900 frames) and processed it on a single unloaded CentOS7.2 64bit machine with dual Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2667 v2 @ 3.30GHz , HT enabled (showing 32 processors in /proc/cpuinfo), on a local XFS filesystem (all defaults), with four JOBs and 12 PROCESSORS (the XDS.INP that Dectris provides suggests 8 JOBs of 12 PROCESSORS, but I changed that). The numbers below refer to the H5ToXds binary as used in the script below.
+ftp://dectris.com/EIGER_16M_Nov2015.tar.bz2 (900 frames) and processed it on a single unloaded CentOS7.2 64bit machine with dual Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2667 v2 @ 3.30GHz , HT enabled (showing 32 processors in /proc/cpuinfo), on a local XFS filesystem (all defaults), with four JOBs and 12 PROCESSORS (the XDS.INP that Dectris provides suggests 8 JOBs of 12 PROCESSORS, but I changed that). The numbers below refer to the H5ToXds binary as used in the [[Eiger#A_script_for_faster_XDS_processing_of_Eiger_data|script]] below.
 The timing, using the latest XDS (BUILT=20151231), is on the first run
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 With program versions as of 2016-03-10, miniCBF is practically as fast as H5ToXds binary; hdf2mini-cbf is somewhat slower.
+When unpacking the .h5 files to .cbf files and processing those, I get (on the same machine and with same processing parameters) on three successive runs:
+ Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS      112.3 sec
+ Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS      110.7 sec
+ Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS      111.1 sec
+which indicates a 8% overhead due to the HDF5-to-CBF conversion.
 == Troubleshooting ==