[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.
Håkon Bugge Hakon.Bugge at scali.comFri Apr 20 01:10:21 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Help with NIC
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 23:37 19.04.2007, greg.lindahl at qlogic.com wrote: >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. I ran the benchmark using both IB and Gbe and compared... (and I did the division you refer to above) The reason for the benchmark showing Gbe to have less overhead than IB is that the overhead associated with Gbe NIC interrupt processing, TCP/IP protocol processing, and socket overhead is mainly handled by kernel threads running on a different core than the MPI process - fooling the benchmark to believe Gbe is more efficient than IB :-) Lessons learned are to be skeptical to benchmarks showing superb result using a single core on a multicore machine ;-) Håkon
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Help with NIC
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
