Closed wwood closed 7 years ago
Well that's just the counter for the logging hitting an integer overflow, which in itself shouldn't cause a problem. However, if it's taking this long then it's going to be running for a long time on the next step. If your running through many different samples at once you may be better off doing them separately, of course your going to loose coverage which may make you miss stuff.
OK, thanks. I'm doing that too but thought I may as well go crazy. Only 1 cpu and very minimal memory taken (so far).
On 11 April 2015 at 17:15, Connor T. Skennerton notifications@github.com wrote:
Well that's just the counter for the logging hitting an integer overflow, which in itself shouldn't cause a problem. However, if it's taking this long then it's going to be running for a long time on the next step. If your running through many different samples at once you may be better off doing them separately, of course your going to loose coverage which may make you miss stuff.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ctSkennerton/crass/issues/73#issuecomment-91782126.
Ben Woodcroft http://ecogenomic.org/users/ben-woodcroft http://www.ecogenomic.org/
Welcome to the future
It hasn't finished patternFinder yet, but will this cause problems in the next step?
Perhaps I am abusing more than using crass here? I'm throwing data at it from a number of metagenomes.