You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 28 Next »

Track Brian Kent's issue.

Comparing CASA-5 and CASA-6 (casa-pipeline-validation-8) across the two different CPUs available for batch processing in NM and CV shows that the newer CPUs (E5-2640v3) run a small calibration job (6.7GB) about 1.25 times faster than the old CPUs (E5-2670) with CASA-6 performing slower in every case.  There was no significant run-time difference between NM and CV for similar hardware and software.

Full, serial pipeline with small dataset

RHEL7 - 6.7GB dataset with NM Lustre-2.5.5

CASAnmpost051 (E5-2640v3)cvpost020 (E5-2640v3)nmpost038 (E5-2670)cvpost003 (E5-2670)
5114, 117110, 111144, 143140, 141
6156*, 164*156*, 158*200*, 201*197*, 199*


RHEL7 - 6.7GB dataset after NM upgrade Lustre-2.10.8 and CV results copied from last test

Mar. 3, 2020 krowe: I tried the nmpost051-casa6-rhel7 with the latest casa-pipeline-validation-17.  The run-time was the same as were the tclean() errors.


"*" Means it completed with tclean() errors

Just serial hifv_importdata() with large dataset

RHEL7 - 350GB dataset with NM Lustre-2.5.5

You can see that running just hifv_importdata() on a larger data set (350GB) shows that nmpost nodes run about 2% to 10% faster than similar cvpost nodes with CASA-6 performing slower in every case.


RHEL7 - 350GB dataset with NM Lustre-2.10.8


Both serial hifv_importdata() and hifv_hanning().

RHEL6 - with NM Lustre-2.5.5

RHEL7 - with NM Lustre-2.5.5


Full parallel pipeline with -n 8

RHEL7

"*" After 14 days of running the setjy task, and using Felipe's profiling metrics, I canceled the job.


Full parallel pipeline with -n 9

RHEL7


"*" Means it completed with pbcor errors


  • No labels