[Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
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.
Jim Lux james.p.lux at jpl.nasa.govFri Nov 12 20:35:07 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Lindahl" <lindahl at pathscale.com> To: <beowulf at beowulf.org> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 06:02:08PM -0500, Patrick Geoffray wrote: > > > How do you close your Torus without long cables ? Unless you stack your > > nodes in a circle, you will need long cables. > > BlueGene's trick is to attach every other node to the end, and then > come back with the unused ones. So: > > Nodes: 0 1 2 3 4 > > Connections: 0 -> 2 -> 4 -> 3 -> 1 -> 0 > > No long cable. This is probably a classic solution not invented by IBM. > Used, for instance, in series wired Christmas tree light strings.. One never knows though... it could have been patented by IBM. <grin>
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
