[Beowulf] Re: 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.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pathscale.comMon Nov 15 17:53:54 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 03:32:15PM -0500, Rick Friedman wrote: > for CFM, I'm a > little surprised you appear to care so much about latency, since I'd > expect your workload to have the usual volume/surface-area scaling, and > thus doing a lot of work in a single node, and needing only moderate > bursts of bandwidth for nontrivial problem sizes. CFD problems come in lots of different kinds, and you seem to only have run into time-explicit problems where you run with a large grid until it reaches steady-state. Those have the least amount of communication. Other kinds of problems have less data per cpu, and care about latency. Or you can be using an implicit technique, which is usually a huge matrix computation, which can be solved in a variety of ways, some of which are lower-communication than others. In short, you don't want to ever make any any generalization about CFD as a whole. You need to specify the solution technique and data size at a minimum. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
