[Beowulf] Really efficient MPIs??
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.comWed Nov 28 11:29:40 PST 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Not quite Walmart, or, living without ECC?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Why need of a scheduler??
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 16:07 28.11.2007, "Michael H. Frese" <Michael.Frese at NumerEx.com> wrote: >Oops, sorry. Early morning typing-while-sleeping. > >The latencies claimed by Argonne for core-to-core >on-board communication with MPICH2 compiled using the ch3:nemesis >device are 0.3-0.5 microseconds, not 0.06. There's also no claim >about what happens when you use it for mixed on-board and off-board comms. > >Our recent dual-core 64-bit AMD boards get 0.6 microsecond latency >core-to-core, while our older 32-bit ones get 1.6. That's all by >netpipe test. Mike, Unless you use an MPI which let you control how processes are bound to cores (or use taskset), you really don't know what you're measuring. On modern systems, two cores could be a) on the same die, b) on the same socket but different dies, c) on different sockets, and d) on different socket where the traffic is routed through a third one. Moreover, on Clovertown, the Snoop filter could be enabled or disabled. So, a core-to-core comparison by two different people, using different MPIs and different systems, probably measures two different things ;-) Hakon
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Not quite Walmart, or, living without ECC?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Why need of a scheduler??
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
