Skip to content

scratchrealm/pynwb_streaming_benchmark

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

3 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

pynwb_streaming_benchmark

The script main.py was run repeatedly in two settings: On dandihub and on a laptop in a home network. The results are in results_dandihub.txt and results_home_network.txt, respectively.

Below is a summary of the average timings. My assessment is that remfile appears to be faster for initial load time while fsspec method appears to be faster for reading a 30 second sample of ephys data. On the home network, the fsspec method appears to be substantially slower than the remfile method for the initial load time.

Some limitations:

  • Only applied to a single NWB file
  • Only ran a limited number of trials
  • Only ran on a single home network
  • Didn't test ros3 method yet

On dandihub

Average Initial Load Time:

  • fsspec: 7.74 seconds
  • remfile: 6.14 seconds

Average 30sec Sample Read Time:

  • fsspec: 7.90 seconds
  • remfile: 8.20 seconds ​

On Jeremy's Home Network

Average Initial Load Time:

  • fsspec: 37.23 seconds
  • remfile: 9.42 seconds

Average 30sec Sample Read Time:

  • fsspec: 47.61 seconds
  • remfile: 56.95 seconds ​

About

benchmarks for methods of streaming nwb files with pynwb

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published

Languages