[Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
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.
Toon Knapen toon.knapen at gmail.comSun Dec 9 11:37:27 PST 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Geoff Jacobs wrote: > > If an application is going to be using only shared memory, I have no > doubt the consensus here is to use native threads or OpenMP. If the > application is going to be working over a network, MPI (or PVM) is the > way to go. If threads are better for SMP, but what about Numa like SGI Altix or HP Integrity ? On the latter for instance, inter-cell (cell = 1 board with 4 cpu's) memory access suffers 200 times higher latency compared to intra-cell memory-access. But also the AMD (and future Intel) processors are Numa. With threads you have no idea about referencing remote memory but is that a good thing? And considering that future processors are even going more extreme in the Numa direction (e.g. the Intel 80-core), is'nt it more future-safe to go with MPI if one would start a large coding-project now? thanks for all the reactions, toon
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
