[Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
deadline at eadline.org
Sun Dec 9 10:19:23 PST 2007
I like answering these types of questions with numbers,
so in my Sept 2007 Linux magazine column (which should
be showing up on the website soon) I did the following.
Downloaded the latest NAS benchmarks written in both
OpenMP and MPI. Ran them both on an 8 core Clovertown
(dual socket) system (multiple times) and reported
the following results:
Test OpenMP MPI
gcc/gfortran 4.2 LAM 7.1.2
CG 790.6 739.1
EP 166.5 162.8
FT 3535.9 2090.8
IS 51.1 122.5
LU 5620.5 5168.8
MG 1616.0 2046.2
My conclusion, it was a draw of sorts.
The article was basically looking at the
lazy assumption that threads (OpenMP) are
always better than MPI on a SMP machine.
I'm going to re-run the tests using Harpertowns
real soon, maybe try other compilers and MPI
versions. It is easy to do. You can get the code here:
> On this list there is almost unanimous agreement that MPI is the way to go
> for parallelism and that combining multi-threading (MT) and
> (MP) is not even worth it, just sticking to MP is all that is necessary.
> However, in real-life most are talking and investing in MT while very few
> are interested in MP. I also just read on the blog of Arch Robison " TBB
> perhaps gives up a little performance short of optimal so you don't have
> write message-passing " (here:
> How come there is almost unanimous agreement in the beowulf-community
> the rest is almost unanimous convinced of the opposite ? Are we just
> ourselves on the back or is MP not sufficiently dissiminated or ... ?
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
More information about the Beowulf