-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
NGFF perf testing #687
Comments
Looks like an error, but seems to have worked OK..
Download (1.4 G) and upload to idr-testing...
Import..
Wow - took 14 hours to import! |
Downloaded 3 plates.zip from https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/submissions/files?path=%2Fuser%2Fidr0010
For plate
Update symlink (as omero-server):
Looks good:
|
Repeating for the other 2 plates downloaded above... Plate
Plate
|
Since E.g.
ssh omeroreadonly-1
On omeroreadwrite, move data to
Looks good - images are viewable under idr-testing.openmicroscopy.org |
Compare formats (on disk)
To compare the performance of NGFF data (ZarrReader) with other formats (both on disk), we want to compare NGFF version of the data alongside the same data in it's original format on the same server.
Choose some data to work with: idr0003 is not too big at 2.3G for a plate. Summary: (more details below):
render_image
to load the initial plane. Plot the average of 25 Wells - Times in millisecs: Error bars are 1 std dev.Conclusion: NGFF is no slower (maybe faster)?
Compare disk vv s3
We want to test the performance of loading data from s3 compared with loading the same data from local disk.
Use idr0010 data since all plates are identical in terms of size etc:
/ngff
dir on each idr-testing serverConclusion: Data access via S3 is slower than on disk:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: