[Beowulf] 2.6.11 is out; with InfiBand support
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.
Mikhail Kuzminsky kus at free.netSat Mar 5 04:59:19 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Windows Server 2003 Compute Cluster Edition
- Next message: [Beowulf] 2.6.11 is out; with InfiBand support
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
In message from Mark Hahn <hahn at physics.mcmaster.ca> (Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:09:09 -0500 (EST)): >> Arima and Iwill have mobos with IB LOM (Landed on Motherboard). > >given the choice between a $150 pcie IB nic and having it onboard, >I'd choose the separate card. I know the IB salesdroids always >say that getting onto the MB will change everything, but this >doesn't make sense. IB is completely different from onboard gigabit, >for instance, because there is no ubiquitous IB infrastructure >ready, waiting to be exploited. > >the problem with "if you build it onboard, they will come" is also >the marginal cost. onboard gigabit is nearly the same cost as >onboard 100bT, very low, and you pretty much always want it. >onboard IB is noticably higher than onboard GBE, noticable in >absolute terms, and you definitely have no possible use for it >on many systems. > >remember, most people don't even saturate GBE yet, Yes, I agree. But we are developing some quantum-chemical application which speedup at parallelization is bandwith-limited. And we obtain that speedup on 6 processors w/IB 4x interconnect is about 34% percent higher than for Myrinet. Yours Mikhail Kuzminsky Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry Moscow > and GBE >ports are damned cheap. GBE nics are free, and switch ports >are now down to $US 23/port: > >http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=netgear+GS748T&btnG=Search+Froogle > >fundamentally, IB is still facing most of the same problems it always >has: > >- requires fairly expensive, unique infrastructure >- not the greatest physical layer: it's easy to wind up with > literally tons of IB cables. >- not clearly superior in performance vs alternatives. >- apparently designed by people who disliked existing technique > or were ignorant of it. >- not a drop-in replacement for alternatives. > >_______________________________________________ >Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org >To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit >http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Windows Server 2003 Compute Cluster Edition
- Next message: [Beowulf] 2.6.11 is out; with InfiBand support
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
