Performance benefits of Intel<sup>®</sup> Optane™ DC persistent memory for the parallel processing of large neuroimaging data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open-access neuroimaging datasets have reached petabyte scale and continue to grow. The ability to leverage the entirety of these datasets is limited to a restricted number of research laboratories with both the capacity and infrastructure to process the data. Whereas Big Data engines have significantly reduced application performance penalties with respect to data movement, their applied strategies (e.g. data locality, in-memory computing and lazy evaluation) are not necessarily practical within neuroimaging workflows where intermediary results may need to be materialized to shared storage for post-processing analysis. In this paper we evaluate the performance advantage brought by Intel®Optane™ DC persistent memory for the processing of large neuroimaging datasets using the two available configurations modes: Memory mode and App Direct mode. We employ a synthetic algorithm on the 76 GiB and 603 GiB BigBrain, as well as apply a standard neuroimaging application on the Consortium for Reliability and Reproducibility (CoRR) dataset using 25 and 96 parallel processes in both cases. Our results show that the performance of applications leveraging persistent memory is superior to that of other storage devices, with the exception of DRAM. This is the case in both Memory and App Direct mode, irrespective of the amount of data and parallelism. Furthermore, persistent memory in App Direct mode is believed to benefit from the use of DRAM as a cache for writing when output data is significantly smaller than available memory. We believe the use of persistent memory will be beneficial to both neuroimaging applications running on HPC or visualization of large, high-resolution images.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".