[Beowulf] Re: dual core (latency)
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.
Stuart Midgley sdm900 at gmail.comMon Jul 18 20:05:44 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: dual core (latency)
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: dual core (latency)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
The first thing to note is that as you add cpu's the cost of the cache snooping goes up dramatically. The latency of a 4 cpu (single core) opteron system is (if my memory serves me correctly) around 120ns. Which is significantly higher than the latency of a dual processor system (I think it scales roughly as O(n^2) where n is the number of cpu's). Now, with a dual core system, you are effectively halving the bandwidth/cpu over the hyper transport AND increasing the cpu count, thus increasing the amount of cache snooping required. The end result is drastically blown-out latencies. Stu. On 19/07/2005, at 10:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > Hello Stuart, > > Thanks for your answer regarding numactl tools. > > Your answer doesn't necessarily explain why the dual core latency > (with or > without numactl) is far worse, yes 30%+ worse, than that of single cpu > opterons of the same speed, when benchmarking just 1 core (so the > others > sitting idle). > > Any thoughts on that? > > Thanks, > Vincent > -- Dr Stuart Midgley Industry Uptake Program Leader iVEC, 'The hub of advanced computing in Western Australia' 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Technology Park Kensington WA 6151 Australia Phone: +61 8 6436 8545 Fax: +61 8 6436 8555 Email: industry at ivec.org WWW: http://www.ivec.org
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: dual core (latency)
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: dual core (latency)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
