2,684
edits
Eiger: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Any comparisons should be based on a common dataset. I downloaded from https://www.dectris.com/datasets.html their latest dataset | 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). | 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. | ||
The timing, using the latest XDS (BUILT=20151231), is on the first run | The timing, using the latest XDS (BUILT=20151231), is on the first run | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS 120.1 sec | Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS 120.1 sec | ||
so there's still some room for improvement. | so there's still some room for improvement. | ||
With program versions as of 2016-03-10, miniCBF is practically as fast as H5ToXds binary; hdf2mini-cbf is somewhat slower. | |||
== A script for faster XDS processing of Eiger data == | == A script for faster XDS processing of Eiger data == | ||