[Beowulf] 1.2 us IB 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.
Peter Kjellstrom cap at nsc.liu.seWed Mar 28 00:05:35 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Next message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Mark Hahn wrote: > >> a dramatic breakthrough: 1.2 us, 25M msg/s. since we just happend to > >> > >> or is this an example of message aggregation? heck, from the url > >> above, it might even be counting intra-box messages. > > > > Nope, this is "normal" ping-pong for the new generation cards (connectx). > > so if I do this: > > start timer > send(other,small-message) recv(first,small-message) > recv(other,small-message) send(first,small-message) > stop timer > > I'll actually see 2.4 us between the timer calls? if I understand, > aggregation would only help on a streaming test. in fact, this kind > of isolated RPC-like exchange is what I see most commonly. Assuming you could time it with any accuracy, yes. I've seen ib_write_lat figures of ~1. > > Maybe a bit optimistic though, I'd expect closer to 1.5 in a back-to-back > > config. > > so for a small switch (24pt, say), how many hops to the internal fabric, > and they're, what, .2 us each? Current switch chips are 24-port, so that means one hop (and yes, I think they are around .2 us each). > also, does back-to-back work well? I can imagine some cases where > putting two dual-port cards in each node and creating a mesh might > work well. That would require IB-to-IB routing on the hosts, I havn't heard of anyone doing that (don't think it's even implemented today). /Peter > >> also, I'm sorta amazed people keep selling (and presumably buying) > >> dual-port IB cards. doesn't that get quite expensive, switch-wise? > > > > Not defending them but, It could possibly maybe be useful if you have a > > stand-alone IB net for, say, storage or something else not mpi. Also, > > it's not like they're that much more expensive than single port ones... > > yeah, I can see PHB's buying redundant fabrics. I'd be more interested in > using the higher port-count for FNN or related topologies (assuming > switches are cheap, at least at some size...) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.scyld.com/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20070328/6dbc2721/attachment.bin
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Next message: [Beowulf] 1.2 us IB latency?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
