issue_comments

Not sure if this helps, but I did a %%timeit on both versions. For daily climatology, the numbers are: CPU times: user 1h 21min 8s, sys: 6h 17min 39s, total: 7h 38min 47s Wall time: 20min 34s

For the 6 hourly thing, CPU times: user 5h 5min 6s, sys: 1d 2h 19min 45s, total: 1d 7h 24min 51s Wall time: 1h 31min 40s

It takes around 4x more time, which makes sense because there are 4x more groups. The ratio of user to system time is more or less constant, so nothing untoward seems to be happening in between the two runs.

I think it is just good to remember that the time to use scales linearly with the number of groups. I guess this is what @shoyer was talking about when he mentioned that since grouping is done within xarray, the dask graph grows, making things slower.

Thanks again!

I wonder if the fact that the data is highly compressed (short types converted to float64 with the scaled and offset attributes) can have an influence on dask performance and memory consumption? (especially the later)

Memory consumption, yes, performance, not so much. Scale/offset (de)compression can be applied super fast, unlike zlib compression which can be 10x slower than reading from disk.

I've had some troubles with 6-Hrly ERA-Interim data myself recently.

I wonder if the fact that the data is highly compressed (short types converted to float64 with the scaled and offset attributes) can have an influence on dask performance and memory consumption? (especially the later)

@shoyer If I increase the size of the longitude chunk anymore, it will almost like using no chunking at all. I guess this dataset is a corner case. I will try increasing doubling that value and see what happens. I hadn't realised that doing a groupby would also reduce the effective chunk size, thanks for pointing that out.

I'm using dask without distributed as of now, is there still some way to do the benchmark? I would be more than happy to run it.

@rabernat I would definitely favour a cloud based sandbox to try these things out. What would be the stumbling block towards actually setting it up? I have had some recent experience setting up jupyterhub, I can help set that up so that notebooks can be used easily in such an environment.

We currently do all the groupby handling ourselves, which means that when you group over smaller units the dask graph gets bigger and each of the tasks gets smaller. Given that each chunk in the grouped data is only about ~250,000 elements, it's not surprising that things get a bit slower -- that's near the point where Python overhead starts to get significant.

It would be useful to benchmark graph creation and execution separately (especially using dask-distributed's profiling tools) to understand where the slow-down is.

One thing that might help quite a bit in cases like this where the individual groups are small is to rewrite xarray's groupby to do some groupby operations inside dask, rather than in a loop outside of dask. That would allow executing tasks on bigger chunks of arrays at once, which could significantly reduce scheduler overhead.

Slightly OT observation: Performance issues are increasingly being raised here (see also #1301). Wouldn't it be great if we had shared space somewhere in the cloud to host these big-ish datasets and run performance benchmarks in a controlled environment?

Hello Stephan,

The shape of the full data, if I read from within xarray, is (time, level, lat, lon), with level=60, lat=41, lon=480. time is 4*365*7 ~ 10000.

I am chunking only along longitude, using lon=100. I previously chunked along time, but that used too much memory (~45GB out of 128 GB) since the data is split into one file per month, and reading annual data would require reading many files into memory.

Superficially, I would think that both of the above would take similar amounts of time. In fact, calculating a daily climatology also requires grouping the four 6 hourly data points into a single day as well, which seems to be more complicated. However, it seems to run faster!

Thanks, Joy

Can you share the shape and dask chunking for data, and also describe how the data is stored? That can make a big difference for performance.