> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Nickerson > Sent: 30 October 2006 10:50 > To: For those interested in contributing to the development of CellML. > Subject: Re: [cellml-discussion] pcenv development priorities > > Alan Garny wrote: > > As you know, there is a CellML 1.0 version of the > epicardial version > > of the ten Tusscher model, which we have. I computed that model for > > one-second worth of cardiac activity, plotting the trans-membrane > > potential. From there, we could extrapolate to 70 minutes by saying > > that the frequency of the stimulus is 1 Hz. Like David, I > have set the > > maximum time step to 0.1 ms. Here are some rough figures: > > > > Simulation time: 1037.4 s (i.e. ~17 min 17 sec) Computation time: > > 684.6 s (i.e. ~11 min 24 sec) > > so the total (predicted) wall clock run time is 17minutes? or > 28minutes?
Oops, sorry for not making that clear: it is 17 minutes. > any chance you could run something longer than a 1s > simulation and extrapolate from there, if not run a whole > 70minutes worth? If not, I guess I can run it next time I'm > on a windows machine ;) Ok, I have quickly set up a CellML 1.0 file with a 1 Hz stimulus protocol (incidently, for those who are interested on how to do that in CellML, as well as a few other things, have a look at http://cor.physiol.ox.ac.uk/FAQ/, towards the end of that page) and ran it for 70-minute worth of cardiac activity on another computer (a Pentium 4 2.4 GHz machine with 1.5 GB of RAM). Here are the figures (using CVODE: BDF+Newton(Dense) and 0.1 ms max time step): Simulation time (i.e. wall clock run time): 1107.193 (i.e. ~18 min 27 sec). Computation time: 945.563 s (i.e. ~15 min 45 sec). I think it's not bad for some 'manually' generated machine code, eh? :) Alan. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
