Performance Evaluation of Big Data Processing Strategies for Neuroimaging

Neuroimaging datasets are rapidly growing in size as a result of advancements in image acquisition methods, open-science and data sharing. However, the adoption of Big Data processing strategies by neuroimaging processing engines remains limited. Here, we evaluate three Big Data processing strategies (in-memory computing, data locality and lazy evaluation) on typical neuroimaging use cases, represented by the BigBrain dataset. We contrast these various strategies using Apache Spark and Nipype as our representative Big Data and neuroimaging processing engines, on Dell EMC's Top-500 cluster. Big Data thresholds were modeled by comparing the data-write rate of the application to the filesystem bandwidth and number of concurrent processes. This model acknowledges the fact that page caching provided by the Linux kernel is critical to the performance of Big Data applications. Results show that in-memory computing alone speeds-up executions by a factor of up to 1.6, whereas when combined with data locality, this factor reaches 5.3. Lazy evaluation strategies were found to increase the likelihood of cache hits, further improving processing time. Such important speed-up values are likely to be observed on typical image processing operations performed on images of size larger than 75GB. A ballpark speculation from our model showed that in-memory computing alone will not speed-up current functional MRI analyses unless coupled with data locality and processing around 280 subjects concurrently. Furthermore, we observe that emulating in-memory computing using in-memory file systems (tmpfs) does not reach the performance of an in-memory engine, presumably due to swapping to disk and the lack of data cleanup. We conclude that Big Data processing strategies are worth developing for neuroimaging applications.

[1]  Athanasios V. Vasilakos,et al.  Fast and Scalable Distributed Deep Convolutional Autoencoder for fMRI Big Data Analytics , 2017, Neurocomputing.

[2]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  The pipeline system for Octave and Matlab (PSOM): a lightweight scripting framework and execution engine for scientific workflows , 2012, Front. Neuroinform..

[3]  Robert Love,et al.  Linux Kernel Development , 2003 .

[4]  Hairong Kuang,et al.  The Hadoop Distributed File System , 2010, 2010 IEEE 26th Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST).

[5]  Matthew R. Pocock,et al.  Taverna: a tool for the composition and enactment of bioinformatics workflows , 2004, Bioinform..

[6]  Andrew J. Hutton,et al.  Lustre: Building a File System for 1,000-node Clusters , 2003 .

[7]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  BigBrain: An Ultrahigh-Resolution 3D Human Brain Model , 2013, Science.

[8]  Takashi Kawashima,et al.  Mapping brain activity at scale with cluster computing , 2014, Nature Methods.

[9]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  Nipype: A Flexible, Lightweight and Extensible Neuroimaging Data Processing Framework in Python , 2011, Front. Neuroinform..

[10]  S. Krishnan myHadoop-Hadoop-on-Demand on Traditional HPC Resources , 2004 .

[11]  Reynold Xin,et al.  Apache Spark , 2016 .

[12]  Dhabaleswar K. Panda,et al.  Triple-H: A Hybrid Approach to Accelerate HDFS on HPC Clusters with Heterogeneous Storage Architecture , 2015, 2015 15th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing.

[13]  Marta Mattoso,et al.  A Practical Roadmap for Provenance Capture and Data Analysis in Spark-Based Scientific Workflows , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science (WORKS).

[14]  Sanjay Ghemawat,et al.  MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters , 2004, OSDI.

[15]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  Mesos: A Platform for Fine-Grained Resource Sharing in the Data Center , 2011, NSDI.

[16]  Alvin Cheung,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of Big-Data Systems on Scientific Image Analytics Workloads , 2016, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[17]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Disk-Locality in Datacenter Computing Considered Irrelevant , 2011, HotOS.

[18]  Matthew Rocklin,et al.  Dask: Parallel Computation with Blocked algorithms and Task Scheduling , 2015, SciPy.

[19]  Arthur W. Toga,et al.  Human neuroimaging as a “Big Data” science , 2013, Brain Imaging and Behavior.

[20]  Geoffrey C. Fox,et al.  Task-parallel Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Trajectories , 2018, ICPP.

[21]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Spark: Cluster Computing with Working Sets , 2010, HotCloud.

[22]  Daniel S. Katz,et al.  Pegasus: A framework for mapping complex scientific workflows onto distributed systems , 2005, Sci. Program..

[23]  Tom White,et al.  Hadoop: The Definitive Guide , 2009 .

[24]  Allen D. Malony,et al.  Scaling Spark on HPC Systems , 2016, HPDC.

[25]  Carlo Curino,et al.  Apache Hadoop YARN: yet another resource negotiator , 2013, SoCC.