You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If the computer that uses the ICOc library is too slow, measurement data might be lost (see also issue #40). To check if the current hardware is (at least in theory) able to keep up with the measurement we implemented a basic tool to measure the loss at a certain data rate: icon dataloss. Currently this tool has multiple issues:
It does not display the data loss for a certain frequency at all 😅 (instead it relies on ICOlyzer to do the post processing)
The measurement time for each frequency is probably too low to give a good overview if there might be dataloss (due to performance issues) or not
Description
If the computer that uses the ICOc library is too slow, measurement data might be lost (see also issue #40). To check if the current hardware is (at least in theory) able to keep up with the measurement we implemented a basic tool to measure the loss at a certain data rate:
icon dataloss
. Currently this tool has multiple issues:Todo
Print data loss for each frequency (for example using
StorageData.dataloss
)Remove HDF5 files after the measurement (for example with
Path.unlink
)Add CPU usage for each frequency (for example using code similar to this one)
Document the command (add documentation to
tutorials.md
)Make sure the command does not fail horribly, if the code raises an exception due to data loss
Make sure to run the tests successfully (at least on Linux and Windows):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: