Perhaps a benchmark for simply calculating a derived field? This would then profile a much smaller codebase.

Also benchmarking projections/fields for AMR/octree/particles of similar resolutions would be pretty cool.

chris


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, I like that idea.  So a unified script with timing for in each
section might include:

 * Halo profiling
 * Global projection
 * Global profiles
 * Global VR (CTF and OffAxisProj)

I think we probably want a large unigrid and a large AMR dataset to
run these on, too.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <goldbaum@ucolick.org> wrote:
> Probably a good idea to try some off axis projections or simple volume
> renderings to test the VR code.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I got an email asking for a benchmark of yt.  I think this is very,
>> very valuable to have going forward.  I was wondering if anyone had
>> any suggestions?
>>
>> I'm thinking that we probably want to test things like the halo
>> finder, projections, and phase plots.  Would a medium (1536^3) halo
>> profiling run do that?  Do we want to add on some global projections
>> and phase plots as well?
>>
>> -Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org