[Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
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.
Toon Knapen toon.knapen at gmail.comFri Dec 7 04:26:42 PST 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] specific motherboard???
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On this list there is almost unanimous agreement that MPI is the way to go for parallelism and that combining multi-threading (MT) and message-passing (MP) is not even worth it, just sticking to MP is all that is necessary. However, in real-life most are talking and investing in MT while very few are interested in MP. I also just read on the blog of Arch Robison " TBB perhaps gives up a little performance short of optimal so you don't have to write message-passing " (here: http://softwareblogs.intel.com/2007/11/17/supercomputing-07-computer-environment-and-evolution/ ) How come there is almost unanimous agreement in the beowulf-community while the rest is almost unanimous convinced of the opposite ? Are we just tapping ourselves on the back or is MP not sufficiently dissiminated or ... ? toon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.scyld.com/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20071207/60c05e51/attachment.html
- Previous message: [Beowulf] specific motherboard???
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
