Flat Network Neighbourhood (again) (was Re: 32-port gigabit switch)

[Ken Chase]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:40:45PM +0200, Eray Ozkural's all...
> Hi Mark!
> 
> On Thursday 06 March 2003 21:55, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >
> > take 64 nodes, think of them as an 8x8 grid.
> > take 16 switches, think of them as 8 "row" switches and 8 "col" switches.
> 
> Excuse me, is that 16 16-port switches? Wouldn't that cost a little too much?
> 
> I've been thinking about novel static and dynamic networks for Beowulf 
> systems, so I have a genuine interest in new architectures. A fat "dynamic" 
> tree sounds like a nice idea.
> 
> I'm not sure if your proposition is sensible, though. Surely, I agree that the 
> "really cool switch" solutions are becoming too expensive....

are we just talking about FNN again? Why row and column? Isnt FNN
more efficient?

          http://aggregate.org/FNN/ 

So for all these clusters, all nodes need to contact other nodes during
calculations, correct, which is why a full switch is needed?

/kc
-- 
Ken Chase, math at velocet.ca  *  Velocet Communications Inc.  *  Toronto, CANADA