[Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
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.
Isaac Dooley idooley2 at uiuc.eduFri Feb 11 16:59:06 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
- Next message: Fw: Re: [Beowulf] cooling question: cfm per rack?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > >>Using MPI_ISend() allows programs to not waste CPU cycles waiting on the >>completion of a message transaction. >> >> > >No, it allows the programmer to express that it wants to send a message >but not wait for it to complete right now. The API doesn't specify the >semantics of CPU utilization. It cannot, because the API doesn't have >knowledge of the hardware that will be used in the implementation. > > That is partially true. The context for my comment was under your assumption that everyone uses MPI_Send(). These people, as I stated before, do not care about what the CPU does during their blocking calls. I was trying to point out that programs utilizing non-blocking IO may have work that will be adversely impacted by CPU utilization for messaging. These are the people who care about CPU utilization for messaging. This I hopes answers your prior question, at least partially. Perhaps your applications demand low latency with no concern for the CPU during the time spent blocking. That is fine. But some applications benefit from overlapping computation and communication, and the cycles not wasted by the CPU on communication can be used productively. Isaac Dooley
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
- Next message: Fw: Re: [Beowulf] cooling question: cfm per rack?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
