[yt-dev] Speed comparison relative to 2.X

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Fri Feb 14 16:47:45 PST 2014


Hi Nathan,

Thanks for running this! I suspect the particles might be particularly bad
right now because of caching being disabled. What is the timing for gas
density?

-Matt

On Feb 14, 2014 7:38 PM, "Nathan Goldbaum" <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Matt asked me to look at the performance of unitrefactor relative to
> 2.X and the current 3.0 codebase. I've done that using the following
> test script: http://paste.yt-project.org/show/4312
>
> The script cycles through a time series, printing out particle masses
> for each dataset.  In a perfect world, this should be an i/o-bound
> operation.
>
> Currently the timings for running this test are as follows:
>
> yt 2.x (dd1ca98)
> 18.37s user 1.43s system 99% cpu 19.997 total
>
> yt 3.0 (1b17b7e)
> 48.76s user 1.81s system 99% cpu 50.743 total
>
> yt-3.0 unitrefactor (8131901df14c)
> 78.72s user 2.00s system 99% cpu 1:20.85 total
>
> So about a thirty second difference between each of the versions.
>
> Clearly this isn't the best news given that we're moving to 3.0 going
> forward.  That said, I don't think there has been a lot of focus on
> 3.0 performance, so it's possible (likely even) there's some
> low-hanging fruit for performance optimizations.  There was also a big
> refactor of how i/o works for Enzo datasets (moving away from
> hdf5_light_reader toward h5py) - maybe that explains some of the
> difference between 2.x and 3.0.
>
> Hope this is helpful,
>
> -Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140214/cd24c14e/attachment.htm>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list