[Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Chris Sideroff cnsidero at syr.eduFri Nov 12 10:37:09 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Bioinformatics/Beowulf applications
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 18:15, Mark Hahn wrote: > > choosing a high-speed interconnect. The consensus was that I should > > first determine whether I even need one, which I have done, and my > > conclusion was that it will benefit our hardware/software combination > > greatly. I have some results which I will post soon. > > I'd be curious to know what gigabit configuration you tested, and > whether you considered any mesh-based gigabit. We did not consider a mesh-based gigabit. At the time of purchase, there was no one present in the department even remotely familiar with clustering and only one person with the UNIX/Linux abilities to administer it. This is why I've been asking all these questions. I guess I haven't mentioned it yet but I'm a PhD student in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering department at Syracuse University in upstate New York. Prior to my arrival here I only had superficial knowledge of clustering and have subsequently spent the last year researching, reading, configuring, testing, etc ... all of this while working on my PhD research (CFD). So I'm essentially the administrator _and_ major user of it. I have to admit it's kinda nice to have almost exclusive use of that much horsepower (64 Opteron 242's) for my work! Sorry, that was a bit of topic. Just wanted to give some background as I realize the majority of readers are seasoned cluster users/admins/researchers. Back to the question - mesh-based gigabit. The boards only have two gigabit ports therefore I would need to get two more per node to test this topology. If Fluent is truly nearest-neighbour and there is some benefit to torus topology for this case it might be an option. BTW, a managed HP Pro/Curve (forget model) 36-port gigabit switch is currently used, which possibly may also be hindering performance. Another thing I'm looking at is the hardware vendors experience with Fluent. Since, there is no option of tuning the code it is quite important that the vendor have had some experiences with other customers using it. And even better, if the technicians are willing to provide support for Fluent with their product. Dolphin has been _extremely_ helpful in this respect, providing an SCI cluster for me to test Fluent and offering suggestions for running it (thanks Simen). I don't expect our cluster will grow beyond the current 32-nodes. There may possibly be an upgrade of CPUs (and/or memory) in the future when the dual-core chips come out but doubtfully the addition of nodes, simply because the are not enough users of it. As a consequence, I am looking to find the "best" interconnect solution which will allow a few people use of most or all of the CPUs for the jobs we run. Thanks again for your comments. Chris Sideroff
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Bioinformatics/Beowulf applications
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
