Perry E. Metzger wrote:
"Jeffrey B. Layton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
In any case, let me note the most important rule: if your CPUs aren't
doing work most of the time, you're not allocating resources
properly. If the task is really I/O bound, there is no point in having
more CPU than I/O can possibly manage. You're better off having 1/2th
the number of nodes with gargantuan amounts of cache memory than
having CPUs that are spending 80% of their time twiddling their
thumbs. The goal is to have the CPUs crunching 100% of the time, and
if they're not doing that, you're not doing things as well as you can.
I absolutely disagree.
Chacun a son gout. I was under the impression that in scientific
computing the name of the game was having your computation done as
fast as possible at the lowest possible cost.
If your CPU is idle, why did you pay for it? They're a huge cost
differential these days between fast and slow CPUs. Why didn't you buy
a much cheaper CPU that would remain nearly 100% busy while keeping
the I/O subsystem as fast? You would have saved lots of cash, your job
would be done just as fast, and probably (in a modern system) you
would have saved a whole lot of electricity because slower CPUs eat
fewer Watts.
Evidently you don't know jack about real codes. In addition, I've gotten
some off-list messages that you have already been added to a number of
kill files as a troll because of you inability to listen, understand,
and explain,
plus your off-list obnoxious emails. I've joined the gang in adding you
to my
kill file. Enjoy.
I believe you're thinking of local IO - like a desktop.
No, really, I'm not.
B.S.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
