Oh, and the DPL94 profiling script is not in a functional state. So only analytic CPMG models are covered. One R1rho model would be useful as the speed up there, if there are many offsets, could be up to an order of magnitude faster than the CPMG models! I think you will see a speed up of over 100 times.
Regards, Edward On 18 June 2014 08:19, Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'll look into it, it should only take me a few minutes to script up. > I can copy the disp_spin_speed branch scripts directly into the trunk, > and they run if I remove the *_orig arguments to the r2eff_*() > functions. The reason I asked if you had more plans for the profiling > scripts is because you only have the B14, CR72, DPL94, and TSMFK01 > models covered. > > Regards, > > Edward > > > On 17 June 2014 23:39, Troels Emtekær Linnet <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Edward. >> >> This does indeed sound very good. It would weight much for me, to know how >> much my effort have paid off. But I can't allocate more time for anything >> strictly needed. >> >> Best >> Troels >> >> On 17 Jun 2014 22:55, "Edward d'Auvergne" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Not quite yet ;) I have to merge this back to trunk. But first I need to >>> see if there is anything to clean up (whitespace, comments, formatting, >>> naming consistency, API consistency, etc.). And then this needs to be >>> released to all relax users, either as relax 3.2.3, or as 3.2.4 with 3.2.3 >>> being reserved for all other trunk changes. >>> >>> For presenting this, I was thinking of a timing table from you profiling >>> scripts. Do you intend on creating a few more? Maybe for a numeric model >>> were I think there are speed ups, though no where near what you are seeing >>> for the analytic models. I was thinking of witing one master script that >>> runs all your profiling scripts, one after the other, then repeating this 10 >>> times. The log would be captured by the script, and then there will be >>> timing statistics for each (grepping just for the func_*() target functions >>> for a single number to use), so that an average and standard deviation can >>> be presented for relax 3.2.2 vs. the new code. Then in the release message, >>> it would look like: >>> >>> Speed comparison for relax-3.2.2 vs. relax-3.2.3: >>> >>> Single spin analysis: >>> CR72: 3.2+/-0.3 s vs. 2.8+/-0.2 s -> 1.14x faster >>> LM63: ... >>> >>> Cluster of 100 spins: >>> CR72: 53.5+/-2.4 s vs. 3.6+/-0.2 s -> 14.9x faster >>> >>> This would be a great way to strongly present these insane speed ups. >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Edward >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, 17 June 2014, Troels E. Linnet >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Update of task #7807 (project relax): >>>> >>>> Percent Complete: 0% => 100% >>>> Open/Closed: Open => Closed >>>> Effort: 0.00 => 100 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Follow-up Comment #263: >>>> >>>> This now complete. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Reply to this item at: >>>> >>>> <http://gna.org/task/?7807> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Message sent via/by Gna! >>>> http://gna.org/ >>>> >> _______________________________________________ relax (http://www.nmr-relax.com) This is the relax-devel mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, visit the list information page at https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel
