[MINC-development] MINC 2.0.19/2.1 and HDF 1.6/1.8

[Claude LEPAGE]

Andrew,

Below are Sylvain's number (en francais). :-)

> > eh? unpossible! :)
> >
> > MINC 2.0.18 == HDF5 1.6.x
> >
> > MINC 2.0.19 (current CVS HEAD == HDF5 1.8.x
>
> Well this got me curious...  So I just ran my own test. (Core i7 950
> 3.07Ghz std "clock" speed, 12GB RAM, 30GB OCZ SSD HDD).
>
> First std karmic build using packages.
>
> $ mincmath -version
> program: 2.0.18
> libminc: 2.0.18
> netcdf : "3.6.2" of Sep 24 2009 17:09:40 $
> HDF5   : 1.6.6
>
> $ minctracc -version
> The program <minctracc> was built from:
> Package mni_autoreg 0.99.6, compiled by @bertie
> (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) on Fri Oct  9 11:41:30 EST 2009
>
> real	2m28.078s
> user	2m27.880s
> sys	0m0.180s
>
> Now the new stuff
> $ ./tree/bin/mincmath -version
> program: 2.0.19
> libminc: 2.0.19
> netcdf : "3.6.2" of Sep 24 2009 17:09:40 $
> HDF5   : 1.8.4
>
> $ ./tree/bin/minctracc -version
> The program <./tree/bin/minctracc> was built from:
> Package mni_autoreg 0.99.6, compiled by @harold
> (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) on Fri Mar 19 12:23:26 EST 2010
>
> real	2m33.449s
> user	2m33.050s
> sys	0m0.400s
>
> ---
>
> I was also doing a bunch of things while this was happening so re-ran
> the tests and got a 2m30 for the original and 2m31 for the new.  So
> yes perhaps there is a minute slow down (1%) but from what I can see,
> not anything to write home and tell mum about.
>
> Interested to see Sylvains numbers.
>
******************************************************************
>
> je sais que 2.0.19 n'est pas encore officiel mais je viens de remarquer
> une chose lorsque je compare le test minctracc d'Andrew avec 2.0.18 et 2.0.19:
>
> le test est le suivant:
>
> time /usr/local/bic/bin/minctracc -clobber -debug -nonlinear -step 2 2 2 /usr/local/bic/share/mni_autoreg/icbm_avg_152_t1_tal_lin.mnc /usr/local/bic/share/mni_autoreg/icbm_avg_152_t1_tal_lin.mnc /tmp/out.xfm
>
> avec 2.0.18, j'obtiens
>
> 190.943u 0.240s 3:11.15 100.0%  0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
>
> et avec 2.0.19:
>
> 304.327u 0.220s 5:04.50 100.0%  0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
>
> niveau optimization, ca va pas dans le bon sens! ;-)
>
> J'ai fait mes tests sur une nouvelle machine, ie taurus.

******************************************************************

1 second difference is fine. 2 minutes more is not ok.

I'll check what's in my 2.0.19. It is very similar to 2.0.18.
Maybe I should not commit these changes. :-)

Claude