[Scilab-users] Matlab vs Scilab perf; calling a fortran routine.

[shorne at energetiq.com]

I've never had to deal with such large data sets.   My first thought would
be to use an ssd to improve swap times to the disk.  Or add more ram.
Or buy a bigger workstation.   Is your algorithm parallelizable?   Or, of
course, just wait -- it all depends on what your real constraints are.





From:	Amanda Osvaldo <lambdasoftware at yahoo.es>
To:	Users mailing list for Scilab <users at lists.scilab.org>
Date:	03/02/2017 04:00 PM
Subject:	Re: [Scilab-users] Matlab vs Scilab perf; calling a fortran
            routine.
Sent by:	"users" <users-bounces at lists.scilab.org>



Steve, how you handle with the memory limitations in your system ?

For example, how you handle 20 GB of data in a machine with 4 GB of RAM ?

-- Amanda Osvaldo


On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 15:14 -0500, shorne at energetiq.com wrote:


      I have done a lot of this kind of thing in scilab and other similar
      tools.  A key point - If the algorithm is naturally vectorizable,
      there probably won't be much benefit in further optimization.
      However it it inherently is not vectorizable then the key calculation
      can be written as a callable fortran (my favorite) subroutine.   Use
      Scilab for the I/O and visualization; write the compute intensive
      core in fortran.

      While I'm on the subject, the old  Intersci system was a very
      convenient way to automatically generate the interface routine
      between scilab and an arbitrary fortran subroutine.  There seems
      not to be recent documentation on doing the same (specifically for
      fortran).  Or am I missing something?   I've had to use the "call"
      interface to use old code.  Is there a better way?

      Thanks -
      Steve


      Ricardo Fabbri ---03/02/2017 01:30:36 PM---Speaking from experience:
      It is worth mentioning that in many ways performance is not critical
      Ricardo Fabbri ---03/02/2017 01:30:36 PM---Speaking from experience:
      It is worth mentioning that in many ways performance is not critical

      From: Ricardo Fabbri <rfabbri at gmail.com>
      To: Users mailing list for Scilab <users at lists.scilab.org>
      Date: 03/02/2017 01:30 PM
      Subject: Re: [Scilab-users] Matlab vs Scilab perf
      Sent by: "users" <users-bounces at lists.scilab.org>



      Speaking from experience:

      It is worth mentioning that in many ways performance is not critical
      for a "lab" language like Scilab or Matlab. It is just an extremely
      simple language to test concepts and algorithms at a very small scale
      of granularity. The real crucial factor for Scilab or Matlab is the
      GUI for exploring data and developing algorithms interactively. Once
      you have a working solution, you'll fit it inside a bigger and more
      relevant
      system by porting promptly to a language like C++ for scalability and
      speed.

      Just use Scilab for what its worth, don't obsess with speed, even
      though it is important.

      Best,

      --
      Dr Ricardo Fabbri
      Professor of Computer Engineering
      GNU/Linux registered user #175401
      pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPRJ
      labmacambira.sf.net
      rfabbri.github.io


      On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Samuel Gougeon <sgougeon at free.fr>
      wrote:
      > Le 02/03/2017 à 16:29, Michael Benguigui a écrit :
      >
      > Hi all,
      > As a Scilab user, I am currently fighting to reach Matlab
      performance..My
      > current scilab program takes 4x more than my matlab's vesion. Here
      are some
      > instructions requiring some optimizations.. If you have an idea...
      thanks a
      > lot!
      >
      > All times are cumulative times after the execution (iterations)
      > I used the Matlab and Scilab profilers
      >
      >
      > Congratulations for using the new Scilab profiler :)
      > Could you post please the file of results? It is indeed hard to
      answer
      > without having more information either on a runnable part of your
      code, or
      > about results you got with the profiler.
      >
      > Regards
      > Samuel
      >
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > users mailing list
      > users at lists.scilab.org
      > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
      >
      _______________________________________________
      users mailing list
      users at lists.scilab.org
      http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users


      _______________________________________________
      users mailing list
      users at lists.scilab.org
      http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
      _______________________________________________
      users mailing list
      users at lists.scilab.org
      http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20170302/63e42142/attachment.htm>