[Bioperl-pipeline] multiple pipelines
Elia Stupka
elia at tll.org.sg
Wed Jul 2 13:29:21 EDT 2003
> Yes, these ideas seem great. I would personally put in a vote for at
> least having pure cgi as an option (as opposed to only having a Java
> based client for example).
You hit home ground with this, since we are a strong perl-shop. We are
thinking of going SOAP/XML in terms of the actual protocol to ship data
between client and server, and then we can implement CGI/Perl
shell/applet on top of that.
> But, for now, how safe is it to run two pipelines at once?
See Shawn's answer, they will not get mixed up, no worries. We
currently do it quite often.
> I don't know if you have any numbers or not, but I wonder what the
> approximate percent speed gain is from doing this... any idea? That is
> obviously a very aggressive setup... the type of setup I would expect
> on a heavily used/publicly accessible resource.
I can't get you numbers off the top of my head, but basically you are
killing BLAST if you read the database from a remote NFS mounted
location.
About the agressive setup.... it is high-performance, no doubt, but not
particularly expensive. You can buy pretty cheap processors, buy EIDE
disks rather than SCSI, and achieve this "aggressive" setup, while
often newbies dish out money on 3Ghz Xeons and then put in a single,
tiny, SCSI hard disk. Ensembl, for example, runs on Blades running
Celerons 800Mhz with mirrored EIDE disks, cheap, and fantastic
performance. Of course the fact of distributing and mirroring databases
only makes sense if you have at least a few nodes, though one could
advocate that as soon as you have more than 2 processors accessing that
data you should do it. The other option is having a dedicated SAN or
NAS though it will never beat local access (which is still the cheapest
solution).
Elia
---
Bioinformatics Program Manager
Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory
1, Research Link
Singapore 117604
Tel. +65 6874 4945
Fax. +65 6872 7007
More information about the bioperl-pipeline
mailing list