[Beowulf] Lowered latency with multi-rail IB?
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.
Håkon Bugge hbugge at platform.comFri Mar 27 11:27:15 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Lowered latency with multi-rail IB?
- Next message: [Beowulf] MPICH2 1.0.8p1 x86_64 (amd64) Package for Debian 5.0 (Lenny)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
, Håkon On Mar 27, 2009, at 19:09 , Joshua mora acosta wrote: > So a way to quantify if multirail helps on network latency driven > workloads > there should be a sinthetic benchmark that can be built to show off > the impact > of balancing these requests among multiple HCAs bound to different > network > paths or core pairs like an all-to-[all,gather,scatter] or barrier > benchmark > and in theory observe half the total latency of that overall > communication. > So I think multirail will reduce latency of sinchronizations > (collective > calls) but not to latency driven point to point communications. > Well, you're wrong. As stated, we do see speedup due to increased message rate on apps not using collectives. As to a benchmark, and all- to-all with _many_ processes per node will show you this. ($MPI_HOME/ examples/bin/mpi_msg_rate in our distro). I would actually claim the opposite; it will _not_ help on most collective operations, because they perform SMP optimizations and one process sends and receives on behalf of the other processes. Uncorrelated messages from many processes on a single node will, on the other hand, take advantages of the accumulated increased message rate provided by multiple HCAs. Håkon > Joshua > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: 12:37 PM CDT, 03/27/2009 > From: Håkon Bugge <hbugge at platform.com> > To: Craig Tierney <Craig.Tierney at noaa.gov>Cc: Joshua mora acosta > <joshua_mora at usa.net>, DPHURST at uncg.edu, beowulf at beowulf.org > Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Lowered latency with multi-rail IB? > >> On Mar 27, 2009, at 18:20 , Craig Tierney wrote: >> >>> What about using multi-rail to increase message rate? That isn't >>> the same as latency, but if you put messages on both wires you >>> should get more. >> >> Exactly why we saw almost 2x speedup on message rate (latency) >> sensitive apps using Platform MPI. We call the technique alternating; >> any communicating peer will use a HCA or port, but a single MPI >> process will alternate between different HCAs (or ports), depending >> on >> which peer he communicates with. >> >> >> Håkon > > >
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Lowered latency with multi-rail IB?
- Next message: [Beowulf] MPICH2 1.0.8p1 x86_64 (amd64) Package for Debian 5.0 (Lenny)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
