[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.
Joachim Worringen joachim at ccrl-nece.deTue Nov 9 19:54:35 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg Lindahl wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:45:12PM -0500, Chris Sideroff wrote: >> I have had the luxury of testing an SCI 2D torus cluster and found >>latency performance to be exceptional. > > Right. So is that a feature of the NIC, or a feature of the torus > instead of a fat tree/CLOS/CBB network? Answer: the NIC. Yes, a feature of the NIC, plus: the torus doesn't affect the latency significantly. In fact, the cost of a hop in an SCI-based torus, like an other reasonable modern torus, is only a low number of nanoseconds (I'd have to look it up right now for an exact number which I can not do from here; I think there's also such a number in a recent publication on BlueGene). A hop in a router node has about the same delay (as it is has a similar task). Joachim -- Joachim Worringen - NEC C&C research lab St.Augustin fon +49-2241-9252.20 - fax .99 - http://www.ccrl-nece.de
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list