[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.
Douglas Eadline deadline at eadline.orgMon Dec 10 11:52:25 PST 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] NFS Read Errors
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Some people had asked for more details: NAS suite version 3.2.1 Test class was: B Units are Mops (Million operations per second) see the NAS docs for more information -- Doug > I like answering these types of questions with numbers, > so in my Sept 2007 Linux magazine column (which should > be showing up on the website soon) I did the following. > > Downloaded the latest NAS benchmarks written in both > OpenMP and MPI. Ran them both on an 8 core Clovertown > (dual socket) system (multiple times) and reported > the following results: > > Test OpenMP MPI > gcc/gfortran 4.2 LAM 7.1.2 > ------------------------------------ > CG 790.6 739.1 > EP 166.5 162.8 > FT 3535.9 2090.8 > IS 51.1 122.5 > LU 5620.5 5168.8 > MG 1616.0 2046.2 > > My conclusion, it was a draw of sorts. > The article was basically looking at the > lazy assumption that threads (OpenMP) are > always better than MPI on a SMP machine. > > I'm going to re-run the tests using Harpertowns > real soon, maybe try other compilers and MPI > versions. It is easy to do. You can get the code here: > > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Resources/Software/npb.html > > -- > Doug > > > > > > > > > >> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org >> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit >> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf >> >> >> !DSPAM:4759a800241507095717635! >> > > > -- > Doug > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf > > !DSPAM:475c325f61251246014193! > -- Doug
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] NFS Read Errors
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
