Eiger: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
229 bytes added ,  19 March 2016
correct CBF benchmark timings ; link to performance article
(correct CBF benchmark timings ; link to performance article)
Line 35: Line 35:
With program versions as of 2016-03-10, eiger2cbf-linux is practically as fast as the H5ToXds binary; hdf2mini-cbf is somewhat slower.
With program versions as of 2016-03-10, eiger2cbf-linux is practically as fast as the 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:
When unpacking the .h5 files to .cbf files and processing those, I get on the same machine and with same processing parameters:  
  Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS     112.3 sec
  Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS       96.3 sec
Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS      110.7 sec
which indicates a 24% overhead due to the HDF5-to-CBF conversion. However, one has to add to this the time for the HDF5-to-CBF conversion, which is (with 18 parallel H5ToXds jobs each converting 50 frames) 34.2 sec, so overall the "on-the-fly" route using the script below is faster than the "pre-conversion" route, at least on this machine.
Total elapsed wall-clock time for XDS      111.1 sec
 
which indicates a 8% overhead due to the HDF5-to-CBF conversion. The latter 3 timings do not include the time for the HDF5-to-CBF conversion.
On multi-socket machines, there are additional considerations having to do with their NUMA architecture - see [[Performance]].


== Troubleshooting ==
== Troubleshooting ==
Line 663: Line 663:
         exit(-1)
         exit(-1)
</pre>
</pre>
== See also: ==
[[Performance]]
2,684

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Navigation menu