[Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
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 at qlogic.com greg.lindahl at qlogic.comThu Apr 19 14:37:44 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Next message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:35:56AM +0200, Håkon Bugge wrote: > This benchmark was _interesting_ in the sense it > showed Gbe over the TCP/IP stack to have lower > CPU overhead than Infiniband... I'm not sure exactly which results you are referring to, but keep in mind that you need to divide the overhead by the number of bytes sent. GigE usually sends a lot fewer bytes than InfiniBand. > Obviously, this because it uses only one MPI process per node - and > in my opinion is flawed by that. I agree that using all the cores is the right approach; that's what real programs do. InfiniPath is embarrassingly parallel in that dimension. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Next message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
