[Beowulf] Сlos network vs fat tree
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 lindahl at pbm.comThu Nov 13 11:53:37 PST 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Сlos network vs fat tree
- Next message: [Beowulf] Сlos network vs fat tree
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:54:35PM +0300, Mikhail Kuzminsky wrote:
> I read somewhere that exact evidence of "non-blocking" was performed for
> Clos networks with >= 3 levels. But most popular Infiniband fat trees has
> only 2 levels.
Two is three: if you have
spine spine
| \/ |
leaf leaf
/ \ / \
node node node node
that's a 3-level network in Clos-speak, because the image you should really
imagine is
node node
\ /
leaf
/ \
spine spine
\ /
leaf
/ \
node node
Or, to think about it another way, you have to go through 3 switches
max to get from a node to another. This is also sometimes called the
network diameter.
> (Yes, I know that "non-blocking" for Clos network isn't "absolute" :-))
So useless that it doesn't even help to mention "non-blocking", unless each node
only talks to exactly 1 other node. In which case I won't complain if you mention
the standard "latency" and "bandwidth" benchmarks ;-)
-- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Сlos network vs fat tree
- Next message: [Beowulf] Сlos network vs fat tree
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
