Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Img Writer: Writing Tiffs is _very_ slow #131

Open
dietzc opened this issue May 22, 2015 · 12 comments
Open

Img Writer: Writing Tiffs is _very_ slow #131

dietzc opened this issue May 22, 2015 · 12 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@dietzc
Copy link
Member

dietzc commented May 22, 2015

Writing a tiff with e.g. 1024,1024 and Z=51, Channel = 3 in this dimension order is super slow. One reason might be, that it seems that nearly every pixel write action is logged somewhere. @gab1one please reproduce and double check!

@gab1one
Copy link
Member

gab1one commented May 22, 2015

Yes, the tiff writers (tiff and ome.tiff) are about 6.000% slower than eq. formats like ics. Even with small images.
One example:

  • SCIFIO can write the same image (128,128, C=1 Z=1, T=50, ) 137.165 ± 2.115 times a second as ICS file but only about 2.093 ± 0.063 a second as (ome.)tiff file.
    take a look at the benchmark results

I removed logging from the TIFF format to check your hypothesis but it did not produce any meaningful performance improvement (up to 0.4 more operations more per second!).
without logging

Larger files take much longer to write but show the same effect.

@gab1one
Copy link
Member

gab1one commented May 23, 2015

see 46b6799 for the first big improvement. Writing the 160mb file sequentially now takes about 10 seconds instead of the 44 it took before

@dietzc
Copy link
Member Author

dietzc commented May 25, 2015

great work @gab1one. Reading & Writing Tiffs (and also other formats) is very often used by the users and therefore performance is crucial.

@dietzc dietzc added this to the 1.4.0 milestone Jul 19, 2015
@gab1one
Copy link
Member

gab1one commented Sep 18, 2015

Further improvements depend on changes in SCIFIO, I will talk with Mark about that.

@gab1one gab1one modified the milestones: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 Sep 18, 2015
@imagejan
Copy link

Any news on this? I'm still suffering severe performance issues with the Image Writer.

Here's an example benchmark workflow:
Image Writer Performance.zip

I get the following writing times for the different file formats:

Node 2    tif       254156 

Node 3    ome.tif   191286 

Node 4    ics       549 

@dietzc
Copy link
Member Author

dietzc commented Jul 21, 2016

I think this is still a SCIFIO Problem. At the moment I can only recommend to use ics in favour of tiff. @ctrueden what do you think?

@ctrueden
Copy link
Member

I am aware of a SCIFIO issue for improving the performance of TIFF reading: scifio/scifio#7.

But is there an issue for improving the behavior of TIFF writing? I couldn't find it.

Has anyone profiled why TIFF writing is slow? I can't imagine it would be that hard to fix. #famouslastwords

@dietzc
Copy link
Member Author

dietzc commented Jul 24, 2016

@gab1one can you reproduce the problem and open an issue in scifio?

@imagejan
Copy link

The slowness issue is reproducible in ImageJ, the relevant SCIFIO issue is scifio/scifio#310.

@dietzc
Copy link
Member Author

dietzc commented Apr 21, 2017

@tibuch
Copy link
Member

tibuch commented May 17, 2018

Any news regarding tif writing speed? I am currently using the image writer to move my data to the python-nodes and it takes a very long time.

@ctrueden
Copy link
Member

@tibuch Sorry for the long delay in reply. Unfortunately, no one is working on TIFF performance. I am very sorry this has sat for so long, but the fact is that we still do not have a dedicated SCIFIO developer who has time to prioritize this issue... yet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants