In the http://cerebralvol.com service we are having 23.5 hours average with 5.1 and 23.8 hours average with 5.2-Beta

Notice that in order to minimize the cost to the user we are running it in m1.medium

We have achieved a full recon-all in less than 4 hours (3.83 hours) with cg1.4xlarge

But for a large amount of data I believe our 1024-core m1.medium is the best cost benefit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior
Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom
-- www.netfilter.com.br
-- For mobile: http://itunes.apple.com/br/artist/netfilter/id365306441



On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Mehul Sampat <mpsampat@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bruce,
No I did not specify the # of open mp threads on the recon-all cmd line.
These run times were obtained by  running one subject per core. for example
 cc2.8xlarge has 8 cores and so we ran 8 subjects at once;
Thanks for the info about the # of open mp threads options; I will look into it.

One other note: Bruce, Nick did you improve the memory management in 5.2 ?
On our local machine we noticed we can run 6 subjects simultaneously even though we only have 12gb of ram.
I thought some of the them might crash since we only have 2gb per subject but no crashes so far over 30 subjects..
Mehul


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hi Mehul

did you specify the # of open mp threads on the recon-all cmd line?
cheers
Bruce

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Mehul Sampat wrote:

Hi Folks, 
Just wanted to share our experience with running FS 5.2-beta on Amazon Web
Services (AWS). 
Basically, AWS has multiple instance types
(http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/) and we were trying to figure out
the most cost-effective approach. 

We ran two subjects through FS 5.2-beta on M1 Large Instance (m1.large)
and Cluster Compute Eight Extra Large Instance (cc2.8xlarge). (same subjects
run on both instance). We expected cc2.8xlarge to be faster (but it is also
more expensive: $2.4 per hour; 8 cores); The run-times we got:

instance-type subject start-time end-time run-time
m1.large subject-1 01:05:44 UTC 2013 15:40:45 UTC 2013 ~14hr-35mins
m1.large subject-2 01:06:06 UTC 2013 15:08:45 UTC 2013 ~14hr-02mins
cc2.8xlarge subject-1 01:26:38 UTC 2013 12:30:23 UTC 2013 ~11hr-04mins
cc2.8xlarge subject-2 01:27:28 UTC 2013 12:19:08 UTC 2013 ~10hr-52mins

Although m1.large is a few hours slower, it seems to be the more cost
effective option since it is $0.24 per hour (2 cores). If you have run
Freesurfer on AWS, do you have a similar experience ? Any suggestions to
speed up the run-times on AWS would be very helpful.

Thanks
Mehul





The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.


_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.