Hi,
We are running freesurfer as part of a bigger pipelines with other steps that can be performed in parallel to freesurfer reconstruction. So far we have set the openmp flag to the number of all available cores. However, our experience with ANTs and AFNI which also capitalize on the OpenMP parallelization is that there is little benefit of using more than 8-10 cores (even if more are available). Does this also apply to FreeSurfer? Does anyone have done some benchmarking of this?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Best, Chris
Hi Chris
we have found an almost linear speed improvement up to 4, then it starts to fall off, with not much at all after 8.
cheers Bruce On Tue, 2 May 2017, Chris Gorgolewski wrote:
Hi, We are running freesurfer as part of a bigger pipelines with other steps that can be performed in parallel to freesurfer reconstruction. So far we have set the openmp flag to the number of all available cores. However, our experience with ANTs and AFNI which also capitalize on the OpenMP parallelization is that there is little benefit of using more than 8-10 cores (even if more are available). Does this also apply to FreeSurfer? Does anyone have done some benchmarking of this?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Best, Chris
Thank you - this is very useful!
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Chris
we have found an almost linear speed improvement up to 4, then it starts to fall off, with not much at all after 8.
cheers Bruce
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Chris Gorgolewski wrote:
Hi,
We are running freesurfer as part of a bigger pipelines with other steps that can be performed in parallel to freesurfer reconstruction. So far we have set the openmp flag to the number of all available cores. However, our experience with ANTs and AFNI which also capitalize on the OpenMP parallelization is that there is little benefit of using more than 8-10 cores (even if more are available). Does this also apply to FreeSurfer? Does anyone have done some benchmarking of this?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Best, Chris
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.
You should also know that the memory management during openmp mri_em_register execution is not optimal (as found by the HCP group. If you are oversubscribing your processors (ie, have 20 cpus, but run 3 jobs each with 8 cpus), then mri_em_register will slow way down. This appears to be due to some caching issues. I'll change recon-all to allow open mp to be disabled during during mri_em_register, but you should be aware of the problem.
On 5/2/17 3:53 PM, Chris Gorgolewski wrote:
Thank you - this is very useful!
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu mailto:fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hi Chris we have found an almost linear speed improvement up to 4, then it starts to fall off, with not much at all after 8. cheers Bruce On Tue, 2 May 2017, Chris Gorgolewski wrote: Hi, We are running freesurfer as part of a bigger pipelines with other steps that can be performed in parallel to freesurfer reconstruction. So far we have set the openmp flag to the number of all available cores. However, our experience with ANTs and AFNI which also capitalize on the OpenMP parallelization is that there is little benefit of using more than 8-10 cores (even if more are available). Does this also apply to FreeSurfer? Does anyone have done some benchmarking of this? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, Chris _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer <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 <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
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu