http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Network-drive-slowness-tp5010338p5010367.html
regarding Bio-Formats. See
performance. We will respond to and work on issues related to file opening
times, etc. We've put a lot of work into CZI and other multi-platform file
> Hi all,
>
> On 10.11.2014 21:13, Curtis Rueden wrote:
>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> should I do a bug report for it?
>>>
>>
>> The CZI support is driven by Bio-Formats [1].
>>
>
> from my experience with loading / saving data from network shares, I'm not
> sure wheter this is related to the CZI format.
>
> Loading images using Bio-Formats directly from a network drive usually
> takes around 10x longer than opening the same file from a local disk
> (whereas the storage backend of the network drive is potentially a lot
> faster than the conventional HDD's we're using on most of our computers).
> Sometimes it can even be up to 100x slower than opening data locally.
>
> The same story goes the other way round, when writing OME-TIFFs to a
> network share. We've even had situations where the OME-TIFFs seem to be
> written correctly but upon re-opening them they were broken. Problem was
> that this was not reliably reproducible, so I didn't have anything to file
> a reasonable bug report.
>
> The baseline of this is that we keep on telling our users to *always*
> transfer the data onto the machines they're using to process it, do their
> work, save it locally and then eventually transfer everything back to their
> network share to ensure maximum speed and reliability.
>
> I'd be more than happy to help in improving this situation!
>
> Best regards,
> ~Niko
> --
> Niko Ehrenfeuchter | Image Analysis Specialist | Biozentrum, University of
> Basel | Klingelbergstr. 50/70 | CH-4056 Basel
> Phone: +41 (61) 26 72673 |
[hidden email] |
> www.biozentrum.unibas.ch | www.microscopynetwork.unibas.ch
>
>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html>