On 18 Oct 2007, at 13:21, David Gutman wrote:
I've run both bedpost and bedpostX on various data sets,and the crossing-fiber algorithm tended to take 3-6 times as long. I think it's a lot more computationally intensive.
Fortunately it parallelizes well, and you only have to run bedpostX once on a given data set.
DG
On 10/18/07, Neil Killeen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hi
I have noticed that the running times for V 3.3.6/bedpost and V4.0/bedpostx
are hugely different. On my relatively small test data set, each
3.3.6/bedpost slice
runs in a few minutes (diff_pvm). However, 4.0/bedpostx takes a
VERY long time (> 60 min). It is the xfibres process that takes the time.
I am assuming this is not right and I have something to track down, or
could it possibly bve something to do with different algorithms and
the particular data set ?
thanks
Neil
--
David A Gutman, M.D. Ph.D.
Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
Emory University School of Medicine