[Beowulf] Opteron performance
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.
Kozin, I (Igor) i.kozin at dl.ac.ukFri Nov 26 03:29:29 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Error with mpif90
- Next message: [Beowulf] Opteron performance
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Regarding Opteron performance and performance in general. To the Opteron users out there, would you mind sharing your experience to date regarding Opteron performance? It would be particularly interesting to hear - what the problems are (if any), - kernel comparisons preferably in quantifiable terms (e.g. RH vs Suse vs GNU 2.6, NUMA and O(1) scheduler support etc), - real benefit of hypertransport etc. I'd suggest to leave compiler comparisons out. What bothers me primarily is that you have to run a benchmark many more times than usual to get the best performance on an Opteron. I've heard other people also mentioning "strange" Opteron behaviour. I'd actually suggest to report a standard deviation error with every performance figure. I've seen as large as 50% deviation in performance from run to run. Here is one sequence of serial performance for example (time in seconds, Opteron244,Suse with 2.4.19 kernel): 3254, 2579, 3258, 2582, 3258, 2658. Clearly if I state that the Opteron can do the job in 2579 sec it makes little practical sense because in 50% cases it will do 26% slower. I tested the same executable with GNU 2.6.8 kernel and was pleased to observe much smaller deviation (about twice as small but then I could not get quite the same best performance I had before: 2632 vs 2579 previously). I must admit that the application is memory bandwidth hungry and generally the more the application is memory intensive the higher the deviation. In the case above some of the memory had to be used off the second cpu. Also in a parallel application the kernel issues are more likely to be blurred out because of the averaging across many cpus. It is reasonable to imagine that had Opteron a better kernel the performance could have been better too. The latest disappointment was to observe CPMD performance on a quad Opteron 848 (2.2 GHz) vs a dual Opteron 246 (2 GHz): (CPMD 3.9.1, wat32 benchmark, run 1/ run 2) serial performance: 1963s/3395s vs 2204s/3466s - alright Opteron 848 is quicker. parallel: 223s/378s (4x4) vs 218s/360s (8x2) - Opteron 246 is quicker. How much should I expect from HT anyway? If it is not again about proper kernel support then I'd be better off having dual Opterons if I need to run CPMD. Kind regards, Igor I. Kozin at dl.ac.uk CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory tel: 01925 603308 http://www.cse.clrc.ac.uk/disco
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Error with mpif90
- Next message: [Beowulf] Opteron performance
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
