Performance comparison of Dask and Apache Spark on HPC systems for neuroimaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The general increase in data size and data sharing motivates the adoption of Big Data strategies in several scientific disciplines. However, while several options are available, no particular guidelines exist for selecting a Big Data engine. In this paper, we compare the runtime performance of two popular Big Data engines with Python APIs, Apache Spark, and Dask, in processing neuroimaging pipelines. Our experiments use three synthetic neuroimaging applications to process the 606 GB BigBrain image and an actual pipeline to process data from thousands of anatomical images. We benchmark these applications on a dedicated HPC cluster running the Lustre file system while using varying combinations of the number of nodes, file size, and task duration. Our results show that although there are slight differences between Dask and Spark, the performance of the engines is comparable for data‐intensive applications. However, Spark requires more memory than Dask, which can lead to slower runtime depending on configuration and infrastructure. In general, the limiting factor was the data transfer time. While both engines are suitable for neuroimaging, more efforts need to be put to reduce the data transfer time and the memory footprint of applications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".