Duke-UNC Brain Imaging and Analysis Center
BIAC Forums | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Support Forums
 Analysis Software Support
 FSL higher level analysis

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
vinod Posted - Jul 09 2007 : 6:18:21 PM
Can someone help decipher this from the FEAT help page. The section under "Tripled Two-Group Difference".

http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/feat5/detail.html#TripledTwoGroupDifference

I just dont understand the explanation for contrasts provided there and am wondering if someone else can explain the same in simpler terms.
5   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
syam.gadde Posted - Aug 01 2007 : 11:05:44 AM
All other things being equal, there should be no difference between running several sequential jobs either manually or through a batch script.

Since you have multiple cores/CPUs on your machine, you should gain from running multiple jobs in parallel. The gain depends on file system throughput and how much time FSL spends in CPU vs. disk. Perhaps you can divide your list of jobs into 2 or 3 groups and run the groups in parallel (each group running several sequential jobs).

There are other more complicated ways to script a maximum of N simultaneous jobs, but these are easy to mess up and run out of control. For example, I use the following template:
#!/bin/bash

MAXPROCS=2
PIDS=()

# here is the main loop
for i in XXX YYY ZZZ etc. ; do
  # do any set up for the background process here
  # ...

  # now, before running anything in the background,
  # check to see if we need to wait for previous
  # processes to finish
  if [ ${#PIDS[@]} -ge ${MAXPROCS} ] ; then
    wait ${PIDS[0]}
    unset PIDS[0]
    PIDS=("${PIDS[@]}")
  fi

  # at this point, we know we can run another background process
  run_this_in_background.sh &

  # DON'T FORGET to add the background process' ID to the process list
  PIDS[${#PIDS[@]}]=$!
done


The "top" command is useful to see what processes are taking up time. It (along with "ps -ef") is also potentially useful to see if there are actually multiple jobs running when you thought you were only running one.
Dichter Posted - Aug 01 2007 : 09:56:28 AM
Are there strategies to optimize performance on these smaller computers (ie, a dual-dual core linux machine) with big FSL batch jobs. Even though I believe my scripts are set up to process one job at a time (ie, no "&" at the end of each command), large batch jobs appear to run much more slowely than the sum of the individual jobs when run one at a time.
petty Posted - Jul 17 2007 : 3:29:07 PM
i'm running it on a dual-dual core linux machine with 8gb ram and its considerably fast than golgi ...

think 15minutes per run for everything (stats,processing,etc)
syam.gadde Posted - Jul 17 2007 : 3:23:59 PM
Considering that golgi's processors are only 900MHz, you will most certainly find your 3.2GHz Linux workstation to run FSL faster, at least on a run-by-run comparison. golgi has more processors and can perform more jobs simultaneously, so potential aggregate throughput is higher than a 3.2MHz dual processor, but even this advantage may disappear as commodity CPU and disk speeds get faster.
vinod Posted - Jul 17 2007 : 3:12:32 PM
Has anyone tried to compare running FSL locally on a linux installation (say on a Pentium 3.2GHz dual processor) against running FSL on golgi?

BIAC Forums © 2000-2010 Brain Imaging and Analysis Center Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000