[Beowulf] New HPCC results, and an MX question
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.comWed Jul 20 10:18:56 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] New HPCC results, and an MX question
- Next message: [Beowulf] New HPCC results, and an MX question
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 03:06:08PM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > Additional there will be software layers that have to lock in some way. Vincent, nobody builds networks this way, at least nobody building a high performance network. What everyone does is give N processes their own virtual copy of the chip, generally called a "port". Myrinet implements ports in software on their Lanai chip, we do them in hardware. In regular InfiniBand, the separate processes get separate queues. You are correct that software locking on the host cpu would be expensive, and that's why "threaded MPI" is a bad idea. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] New HPCC results, and an MX question
- Next message: [Beowulf] New HPCC results, and an MX question
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
