PVM and MOSIX
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.
Coetmeur, Alain alain.coetmeur at icdc.caissedesdepots.frThu Nov 2 01:48:07 PST 2000
- Previous message: A beowulf for parallel instruction.
- Next message: DQS drops jobs on SuSE 6.3 cluster
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
maybe the best solution is to use PVM as usual, so it spawn one process per processor on each machine. mosix will then do it's best to balance load if nodes are used by others, or is PVMPov daemon have different workload. what you remark is also what I've noted with a parallel computation program based on plain RPC distribution through TCP/IP. mosix is good at balancing what is quite already roughly balanced... my idea is that it is better in managing a real world shared virtual computer, and not a benchmark. look also at mosrun option (there is a random node option) so that pvmdaemon are migrated at first time... the best is really to distribute process with remote exec, but force initial migration and allow further migration is maybe enough. another point is that you need to have enough swap space for all the process, and maybe a good part of real RAM, yer mosix will try to balance RAM usage. contacte the mosix list for more info. -----Message d'origine----- De: Andreas Boklund [mailto:andreas at amy.udd.htu.se] Date: mercredi 1 novembre 2000 09:18 À: Kiran Cc: beowulf at beowulf.org Objet: Re: PVM and MOSIX I have a cluster that use both PVM and MOSIX. And i used it to run PVMPov. If MOSIX is much faster i would recommend that you to make sure that PVMPov really utilizes both machines. Otherwise it could be a configuration error. Alternative explanation: To see what was best i invoked several PVMPov processes, ither on one node each OR all on the master node and left it to MOSIX to distribute them. What i noticed was that on 2 nodes the time was almost identical at about 70 seconds. Here is a shorter version of my chart: (read of a graph and rounded, but i think you get the general idea) Processes Seconds for PVM MOSIX 2 70 70 4 15 35 6 12 40 8 10 45 10 5 45 12 <5 45 14 <5 50 16 <5 55 18 <5 65 20 <5 60 As you notice the PVM times decreased with the number of nodes, while the MOSIX timing first went down and then up again. The reason for this is that The computer has to become "overloaded" before MOSIX starts to migrate processes and when you start many processes the master node get so overloaded that it cant serve the processes that it has migrated with new figures to crunch(well it moves them back fills em up and then sends them away again). Therefor the increase in time with a higher number of processes. We did find that if we used a larger image then skyvase, the initial down dip spanned over more processors. This was because the extra time is in the initial stage before the system has stabilized(all processes have been migrated). As i see it there shouldnt be any possibility that MOSIX would distribute the PVMPov processes better then PVMpov alone. Good luck //Andreas Boklund ********************************************************* * Administator of Amy(studentserver) and Sfinx(Iris23) * * * * Voice: 070-7294401 * * ICQ: 12030399 * * Email: andreas at shtu.htu.se, boklund at linux.nu * * * * That is how you find me, How do -I- find you ? * ********************************************************* _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list Beowulf at beowulf.org http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
- Previous message: A beowulf for parallel instruction.
- Next message: DQS drops jobs on SuSE 6.3 cluster
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
