Steve-
I'm running FSL 4.0.2 on a KDE 3.3.1-9.el4 (Red Hat) platform. I have 8 2.66
GHz Intel Xeon processors at my disposal. The flame processes that I have
going are each utilizing 100% a given processor. I have 16GB of memory, each
flame process is only utilizing around 0.2% of available memory. Any other
particular info that might have diagnostic importance?
-Jim
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:25:54 +0000, Steve Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi - because you have so many input images, FLAME is being run a slice
>at a time. However, you're right that it should not normally be taking
>this long to complete each slice, so yes it does sound like something
>is up - possibly your computer doesn't have enough RAM etc.? If you
>look at top again, is most of the time indeed being taken with running
>flame? How much %cpu is it getting, and how much RAM is it using? What
>hardware and OS are you using?
>
>One thing that might make a difference - in the latest patch release -
>i.e. FSL-4.0.2, there was a minor script change in FEAT which means
>that the splitting of the data into individual slices is done just
>once rather than many many times (thanks to Tim for suggesting this).
>So if your processing is taking ages because of the file IO and
>fslsplit rather than the actual FLAME program, you should see an
>improvement if you download the very latest version of FSL.
>
>Cheers.
>
>
>
>On 5 Dec 2007, at 17:56, James N. Porter wrote:
>
>> Hello-
>>
>> I've set up a 3rd level analysis that has been running for 4 days
>> now. I keep checking top, and the flame processes do restart
>> approximately every 3-5 hours. So it seems that the iterations are
>> moving along, but I've never had a 3rd level analysis last longer
>> than half a day. Does 4+ days seem unreasonable for the following
>> parameters?
>>
>> CPU: a pair of quad-core Intel Xeon processors at 2.66GHz each and a
>> total of 16GB of RAM
>>
>> Inputs: 192 cope images, 4 each from 48 subjects
>>
>> Model: Flame 1, GLM set up as a paired samples design, a la the help
>> page example, with EV 1 defining my contrasts of copes and EVs 2-25
>> defining pairs of subjects to account for pair-by-pair
>> intercorrelation (they were identical twins). My design summary can
>> be seen here: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~norb0062/design.png
>>
>> Thanks for your input,
>> --
>> Jim Porter
>> Graduate Student
>> Clinical Science & Psychopathology Research
>> University of Minnesota
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering
>Associate Director, Oxford University FMRIB Centre
>
>FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
>+44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
>[log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=========================================================================
|