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

UserWarning: resource_tracker #4

Open
virsto opened this issue Mar 27, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

UserWarning: resource_tracker #4

virsto opened this issue Mar 27, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@virsto
Copy link

virsto commented Mar 27, 2023

The only way that I have found to execute your example without this UserWarning is to set multiprocess = False. I am running your multitaper_toolbox on Python 3.9.9 (tags/v3.9.9:ccb0e6a, Nov 15 2021, 18:08:50) [MSC v.1929 64 bit (AMD64)] on a Windows 10 platform. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the actual source of what causes these user warnings. I do like your code for the multitaper PSD -- I am trying to use it on EKG signals (MIT Physionet EKG resources).

You might be interested to know that my 7-core laptop with multiprocess = True, "Multitaper compute time: 2.42 seconds", while with multiprocess = False, "Multitaper compute time: 0.31 seconds".

I hope that this information can be usefu :-)

@thpossidente
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for your feedback - it's much appreciated.

Is the time difference in multiprocessing using your own data or the example data?

One thing that could be causing the time difference in multiprocessing is if the data segment you are using is very short. There is a time overhead associated with using parallel processing - so in some cases it can take longer than running without parallel.

If you are using your own data, could you send the (deidentified) data you are using to [email protected] in order for us to investigate this resource_tracker warning?

Best,
Tom

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants