[Beowulf] Theoretical vs. Actual Performance
joe.landman at gmail.com
Thu Feb 22 15:01:06 PST 2018
ACML is hand coded assembly. Not likely that OpenBLAS will be much
better. Could be similar. c.f.
On 02/22/2018 05:48 PM, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
> Just rebuilt OpenBLAS 0.2.20 locally on the test system with GCC
> 6.1.0, and I'm only getting 91 GFLOPS. I'm pretty sure OpenBLAS
> performance should be close to ACML performance, if not better. I'll
> have to dig into this later. For now, I'm going to continue my testing
> using the ACML-based build and revisit the OpenBLAS performance later.
> On 02/22/2018 05:27 PM, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
>> So I just rebuilt HPL using the ACML 6.1.0 libraries with GCC 6.1.0,
>> and I'm now getting 197 GFLOPS, so clearly there's a problem with my
>> OpenBLAS build. I'm going to try building OpenBLAS without the
>> dynamic arch support on the machine where I plan on running my tests,
>> and see if that version of the library is any better.
>> On 02/22/2018 09:37 AM, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
>>> In your experience, how close does actual performance of your
>>> processors match up to their theoretical performance? I'm
>>> investigating a performances issue on some of my nodes. These are
>>> older systems using AMD Opteron 6274 processors. I found literature
>>> from AMD stating the theoretical performance of these processors is
>>> 282 GFLOPS, and my LINPACK performance isn't coming close to that (I
>>> get approximately ~33% of that). The number I often hear mentioned
>>> is actual performance should be ~85%. of theoretical performance is
>>> that a realistic number your experience?
>>> I don't want this to be a discussion of what could be wrong at this
>>> point, we will get to that in future posts, I assure you!
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
e: joe.landman at gmail.com
More information about the Beowulf