[yt-dev] Good benchmark?

Fri Mar 1 12:48:51 PST 2013

If we do want to go with some big datasets, I can provide some 1024^3 and
1536^3 unigrids.  I'm sure others have better AMR data than I do.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Sam,
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think in terms of providing a test for the cluster, the benchmark
> should
> > not require the shipment of data.  For the benchmarking of yt for yt's
> own
> > sake, then we do need to test the IO performance.
>
> I'm not really sure that we want to avoid IO...
>
> >
> > I think it'd be great to make an in-memory dataset that can then be used
> for
> > testing performance.  For example, set up a bunch of refined spheres and
> > then project/slice/profile/render/halo find?
>
> Perhaps, but will our current IC generators work at really, really big
> scale?  I didn't think they would.  Plus it's hard to get them to
> subdivide -- you end up with ltos of nested grids.
>
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jeff,
> >>
> >> Sure.  I got asked for a standard yt performance benchmark to be run
> >> to figure out performance of an analysis cluster and evaluate its
> >> readiness.  :)  I think it's safe to sya that we should be pushing
> >> things like IO, memory capacity and communication performance.
> >>
> >> Adding such a set of scripts (and their results!) would be very useful
> >> going forward, along with a little description of why we chose the
> >> routines we did.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:17 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Matt,
> >> >
> >> > It might be helpful if you shared some more details of this particular
> >> > benchmarking exercise, if you can. It would be helpful for making sure
> >> > we present the most usefil information to the people asking for it as
> >> > well as info that is useful to us going forwards.
> >> >
> >> > j
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Definitely, yes.  For what it's worth, the specific use case I have
> in
> >> >> mind is for performance testing a system, so I think scalability will
> >> >> be important.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> It might be worth showing how well this works on a single proc as
> well
> >> >>> as
> >> >>> how well it works using parallel mode on a few different numbers of
> >> >>> processors.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Christopher Moody
> >> >>> <chrisemoody at gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Perhaps a benchmark for simply calculating a derived field? This
> >> >>>> would
> >> >>>> then profile a much smaller codebase.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Also benchmarking projections/fields for AMR/octree/particles of
> >> >>>> similar
> >> >>>> resolutions would be pretty cool.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> chris
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Turk <
> matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Okay, I like that idea.  So a unified script with timing for in
> each
> >> >>>>> section might include:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>  * Halo profiling
> >> >>>>>  * Global projection
> >> >>>>>  * Global profiles
> >> >>>>>  * Global VR (CTF and OffAxisProj)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I think we probably want a large unigrid and a large AMR dataset
> to
> >> >>>>> run these on, too.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Nathan Goldbaum
> >> >>>>> <goldbaum at ucolick.org>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>> > Probably a good idea to try some off axis projections or simple
> >> >>>>> > volume
> >> >>>>> > renderings to test the VR code.
> >> >>>>> >
> >> >>>>> >
> >> >>>>> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Matthew Turk
> >> >>>>> > <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> > wrote:
> >> >>>>> >>
> >> >>>>> >> Hi all,
> >> >>>>> >>
> >> >>>>> >> I got an email asking for a benchmark of yt.  I think this is
> >> >>>>> >> very,
> >> >>>>> >> very valuable to have going forward.  I was wondering if anyone
> >> >>>>> >> had
> >> >>>>> >> any suggestions?
> >> >>>>> >>
> >> >>>>> >> I'm thinking that we probably want to test things like the halo
> >> >>>>> >> finder, projections, and phase plots.  Would a medium (1536^3)
> >> >>>>> >> halo
> >> >>>>> >> profiling run do that?  Do we want to add on some global
> >> >>>>> >> projections
> >> >>>>> >> and phase plots as well?
> >> >>>>> >>
> >> >>>>> >> -Matt
> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >> >>>>> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> >>>>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >> >>>>> >
> >> >>>>> >
> >> >>>>> >
> >> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> > yt-dev mailing list
> >> >>>>> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> >>>>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >> >>>>> >
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> yt-dev mailing list
> >> >>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> >>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> yt-dev mailing list
> >> >>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> >>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Cameron Hummels
> >> >>> Postdoctoral Researcher
> >> >>> Steward Observatory
> >> >>> University of Arizona
> >> >>> http://chummels.org
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> yt-dev mailing list
> >> >>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >> >>>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > yt-dev mailing list
> >> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > yt-dev mailing list
> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20130301/58031137/attachment.html>