[Beowulf] Q: IB message rate & large core counts (per node) ?
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 pbm.comSat Mar 6 15:36:07 PST 2010
- Previous message: [Beowulf] best sophomore-level FPGA reference?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Windows Master, Linux Slaves
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > Personally, I believe our thinking about interconnects has been > poisoned by thinking that NICs are I/O devices. We would be better > off if they were coprocessors. Threads should be able to send > messages by writing to registers, and arriving packets should > activate a hyperthread that has full core capabilities for acting on > them, and with the ability to interact coherently with the memory > hierarchy from the same end as other processors. I'm up for dedicating 1+ normal processor cores to doing the special stuff. Nodes have a lot of cores these days, and all-2-sided programs don't have to dedicate a core & thus would pay nothing. In the MPI 1-sided model, you'd probably want to run all the cores on separate programs and have the dedicated core get access to the appropriate process' address space. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] best sophomore-level FPGA reference?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Windows Master, Linux Slaves
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
