For the first version I needed 400-500GB RAM, so that wouldn't be overkill. The threads however seem pretty much useless, indeed.
Hoiweveriwever, as the latter version seems so much more memory efficient, I am wondering why it's not implemented as the default in form of a function call with the same prominence in the documentation. Would love to hear Tiago or anyone else chime in on this. What's the advantage of the boiler-plate minimize_nested_blockmodel? Is there any except less lines of code? Cheers, Felix > On Wednesday, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:28 PM, Deklan Webster <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > I had success with the latter method. Although, it seems the hardware you > have is a bit overkill (I did 3m~ edge graph with 16GB RAM laptop with enough > RAM to spare). I'm not sure if it's possible to utilize multithreading for > this, but if not those threads you have won't help much. Still hoping to get > an answer about multithreading from someone more knowledgeable > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:35 AM James Ruffle <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > Dear community, > > > > I have been following this thread as have a similar predicament - trying to > > run the nested block model on a graph of 1mil nodes and 12 mil edges. > > Since I have read of the computational cost from others, I have got access > > to a server with 500Gb RAM with ~120 CPU threads. > > Based upon this graph complexity and your prior experience, which approach > > you would aim for: > > > > 1) minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl(g) > > > > or > > > > 2) prime an empty object and MCMC equilibrate with multi-flip: > > bs = [np.zeros(1)]*6 > > state=NestedBlockState(g=g,bs=bs,sampling=True) > > gt.mcmc_equilibrate(state,multiflip=True) > > > > Am very grateful for the guidance…! > > (I wonder how long this will take to run…??) > > > > James > > > > > On 24 Feb 2020, at 18:40, Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[email protected] > > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > Am 24.02.20 um 19:32 schrieb Davide Cittaro: > > >> In the thread linked > > >> (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmain-discussion-list-for-the-graph-tool-project.982480.n3.nabble.com%2FSBM-on-Dense-Graphs-td4027902.html%23a4027907&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3b3a0d8d77904e2eb56e08d7b9591fc8%7C569df091b01340e386eebd9cb9e25814%7C0%7C0%7C637181664763877491&sdata=0dTsu3ywNL1WL7FZrvc%2BHg1lEZXEjAaM2hkUMTq640k%3D&reserved=0) > > >> is written > > >> > > >> (Remember to replace mcmc_sweep() with multiflip_mcmc_sweep() in the code > > >> above. I had forgotten to make this change the last release...) > > >> > > >> Does this mean that one should also set "multiflip=True" in > > >> mcmc_equilbrate? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > -- > > > Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > graph-tool mailing list > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.skewed.de%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgraph-tool&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3b3a0d8d77904e2eb56e08d7b9591fc8%7C569df091b01340e386eebd9cb9e25814%7C0%7C0%7C637181664763877491&sdata=izkn35h55P2quQwzqI4AaSS7Zk%2BO%2FY6Hhc9Fdmo38D8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > graph-tool mailing list > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool > _______________________________________________ > graph-tool mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool
_______________________________________________ graph-tool mailing list [email protected] https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool
