[Fwd: Re: 32-port gigabit switch]
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.
Jeffrey B. Layton laytonjb at bellsouth.netFri Mar 7 04:55:33 PST 2003
- Previous message: [Fwd: Re: 32-port gigabit switch]
- Next message: [Fwd: Re: 32-port gigabit switch]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dave Vehrs wrote: > > >>>Additionally the latency on Gigabit is simply to high for large >>>clusters. Remember on clusters latency is more important than >>>throughput. >>> >>> >>> >>Bzzt. Wrong. Dead Wrong. "It depends" is the correct answer. (Don't >>pass GO, don't collect $200). >> >> > >OK show me how to do 512 nodes or higher with Gigabit and reasonable >latencies (i.e "for large clusters"). > It depends upon your APPLICATION. Some need bandwidth, some need latency (some don't really need either :) Stating that latency is more important than bandwidth is really just trying to start a flame war. I'm suprised you're trying to start a flame war =:) Jeff
- Previous message: [Fwd: Re: 32-port gigabit switch]
- Next message: [Fwd: Re: 32-port gigabit switch]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
