> Kevin Jacobs wrote: > > First of all I would like to congratulate both the developers and the > > users for making a rather impressive application framework. It is in many > > ways significantly better than anything I have seen to date for scientific > > applications. > > Yes, ROOT team has deserved to receive not only bug reports. Here is another modest contribution. A week ago I used ROOT to make the slides for a presentation where quality of the slides was quite an issue. Thanks Rene, Fons, Valerij and Nenad! Great job! ... Bug report will follow ... > > > > 3) Have there been any benchmarks relating non-application framework > > programs to ROOT ported ones? On the ROOT web site there are several > > tables, but none seem to provide an idea of the performance hit > > endured by programs that use ROOT. (Please do not tell me that ROOT > > makes special purpose software faster-- the only time this happens is > > when the original program is shoddily written). > > Here is one of the user comparisons. Not on the performance though... For many years HEP community has been using a FORTRAN-written histogramming package called HBOOK which among many other features provided tools to store ntuples/histograms on disk in an architecture-independent format (it should be mentioned that Rene was one the authors of HBOOK...). Having converted one of my HBOOK ntuple files into ROOT format I obtained a compression factor of about 12 (!): -rw-r--r-- 1 murat cdfupg_d 10788864 May 22 11:51 mbr_proc_001.3.hrz -rw-r--r-- 1 murat cdfupg_d 889792 May 26 20:25 mbr_proc_001.3.root Some details on this comparison. Default settings for all the parameters affecting disk space usage have been used for both HBOOK and ROOT. The HBOOK file contained ntuples with 1- and 2-dimensional arrays, significant part of the ntuples is in fact empty and ROOT compression procedure took care of it. But the result is impressive nevertheless. Pasha.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:26:19 MET