[Beowulf] Re: MPI Implementations for SMP use
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.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pathscale.comMon Jan 3 11:12:45 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] MPI vs PVM
- Next message: [Beowulf] ICPP 2005 CFP: Deadline Extended to 1/10/05
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 05:37:20PM -0600, Isaac Dooley wrote: > Not necessarily. Charm++ uses an abstraction that does not concern the > programmer with the location/node of a given object. That's the problem. I should really use "explicit locality" instead of "perfect locality" -- the perfect was referring to the good performance implications of the programmer never screwing up because he doesn't realize an object isn't local. Explicit locality is harder to use, but helps scaling/performance. BTW, I work with one of the charm++/AMPI authors, so I think I'm pretty familiar with it ;-) -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] MPI vs PVM
- Next message: [Beowulf] ICPP 2005 CFP: Deadline Extended to 1/10/05
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list