Are Ultra-low RAM Assemblers Useful for those with Kick-ass Servers?

Are Ultra-low RAM Assemblers Useful for those with Kick-ass Servers?

Computer scientists have been spending great deal of time to find memory- efficient methods for NGS assembly, as we explained in an earlier commentary. Their primary motivation is to be able to compete with genome centers and few dedicated genome assembly groups, who already have high-RAM servers. However, can the groups with high-RAM servers find any use of memory-efficient assemblers?

Assembling even larger sets like metagenomes is one possible answer, but even those not working on metagenomes can use memory efficient assembler by running assembly with many different parameters in parallel. Assembling with many different k-mer sizes and choosing optimum k-mer is one option. With memory- efficient assemblers, all those assemblies with multiple k-mers can be run in parallel.

Over the weekend, we tried checking the above possibility with Minia and hit several glitches. None of them is insurmountable, but we thought it would be worth listing them to save others some time. Those using other assemblers need to check with respective options, but we believe all of them will face similar problems in one form or another.

1. Too many open files Minia uses the disk extensively and opens many files (over 1000) in parallel. Unix file systems usually limit the number of files one shell can open, and you can check the limit on your machine by typing ‘ulimit -n’. To increase the limit, you may have to contact your system administrator.

2. Max k-mer size limited to 32 Maximum k-mer size in our code was limited to 32. We tweaked the makefile to increase it to 64.

3. Disk space Unlike 1 and 2, this is a serious problem. Minia and many other assemblers use the disk to count k-mers in the NGS libraries. For one human library, you may do ok with 1 Terabyte of hard-disk. If you want to run 16 similar assemblies (all odd ks between 25-57) in parallel, be ready to start with a large disk with 16 Terabytes of empty space.

Then again, someone with 512 GB RAM servers speaks in terms of petabytes of disk space, right? :)



Here is the final answer from C. Titus Brown -

Written by M. //