We will have some real benchmarks announced over the next few months. Microbenchmarks, industry benchmarks, and application benchmarks. I am not going to throw out some numbers right here because I don't have all the details yet and some of the driver stacks are still being tuned. But our testing so far shows MPI latency numbers comparable to the best Linux numbers on the same hardware.
I know more than one customer who has ported their application from sockets to MPI simply because the MPI stack talked directly to the hardware from usermode and therefore delivered better latency than IP emulation done by a kernel driver. Some IB vendors provide SDP support on Linux which should be roughly equivalent. I do not know how trivial setting this up is for your average *ix person or how the latency of SDP compares to a tuned MPI. I'd be interested to hear about it if anyone has practical experience. John Vert Development Manager Windows High Performance Computing > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Hahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:22 PM > To: John Vert > Cc: beowulf@beowulf.org > Subject: RE: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear... > > > The high-speed interconnects plug into our MPI stack through Winsock > > Direct. This enables low-latency usermode I/O at the sockets level. > > Any > > how low-latency? anyone who cares about latency needs to know the > numbers, and especially versus linux on the same hardware. > > > application that uses sockets will benefit from the high speed > > interconnect without relinking or recompiling. > > is this trivial (to a *ix person) or am I missing the point? > most interconnects provide IP emulation and thus by definition work as > you describe, no? even the converse (use various interconnects without > recompiling/linking) is also done pretty commonly. > _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
