> With more cores on a single node, the IB benefits are seen in much
lower number of nodes. I am testing some applications on a new cluster
that I have (dual sockets quad core Barcelona), and my first results are
with Fluent new benchmarks. I will have the numbers posted soon, so you
all can tak
Richard Walsh wrote:
>> With more cores on a single node, the IB benefits are seen in much
lower number
>> of nodes. I am testing some applications on a new cluster that I have
(dual
>> sockets quad core Barcelona), and my first results are with Fluent
new
>> benchmarks. I will have t
Gilad Shainer wrote:
> With more cores on a single node, the IB benefits are seen in much lower
> number
> of nodes. I am testing some applications on a new cluster that I have (dual
> sockets quad core Barcelona), and my first results are with Fluent new
> benchmarks. I will have the number
Sangamesh:
I am by no means an expert with either clustering or CPMD, but am
learning both. I am using OpenMPI, not MPICH, but can relate some
things that I would look for.
1) First, have other CPMD parellel jobs worked correctly on the same
nodes with the same executable?
2) Does the cpmd exec
David Mathog wrote:
> Joe Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Gilad Shainer wrote:
>>
>>
IB for gaming? I have one ratio: 1e-1/3e-6.
that's human
reaction time versus IB latency.
>>> Oh yes... I guess you did not play for a long
time. Did you? Talk
>>> wi
>
> I thought the thrust of the original post was that you can
> build now a cheap IB cluster with up to 24 nodes. The
> subsequent discussion was around questioning whether you need
> IB for up to 16-24 nodes.
> The advantage you point to is for 32 nodes. There is no
> question that IB is
Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008, meintest Du:
SA> On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:20 PM, Gilad Shainer wrote:
>> For BW, Lx provides ~1400MB/s, EX is ~1500MB/s and ConnectX
is
>> ~1900MB/s
>> uni-directional on PCIe Gen2.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Douglas Eadline wrote:
Look if you want to do on-line gaming right
you need to bypass the physical input devices
and jack directly into the brain. That is
unless I'm already sitting in a chair (or pod)
and jacked into this reality. Now were did I
put my cool sunglasses :-)
Look if you want to do on-line gaming right
you need to bypass the physical input devices
and jack directly into the brain. That is
unless I'm already sitting in a chair (or pod)
and jacked into this reality. Now were did I
put my cool sunglasses :-)
--
Doug
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Eugen Leitl wr
Sangamesh,
If it turns out that you need to recompile with the debugging symbol table,
and then use a symbolic debugger to examine the "core" file against the
application source, and you've never done that before, then drop me a line
(but I would not be up-to-date about your compiler or your debugg
With regard to weather codes. I looked at a program for
local forecasting. Just six or eight computational
nodes are used. The grid of physical data is not very dense
because the initial conditions do not have high spatial resolution.
The consequence is that each subdomain has alot of surface a
Mark Hahn wrote:
sure, and these are very fat nodes for which a fat interconnect is
appropriate for almost any workload that's not embarassing. but really
I wasn't suggesting that plain old Gb (bandwidth in particular) was
adequate for all possible clusters. I was questioning whether IB was a
whenever I ask about IB bandwidth, people always point fingers
at weather codes, which apparently are fond of doing the transpose
in multi-dimension FFT's using all-to-all. while convenient, this
seems a bit silly, since transpose is O(N) communications, not O(N^2).
Mark,
interconnect does mat
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:05:13PM -0800, David Mathog wrote:
IB would be massive overkill for gaming, 100 (or even 10) baseT should
work just fine unless the network is hideously congested, in which case
the game is probably going to become unplayable d
I thought the thrust of the original post was that you can build now a cheap IB
cluster with up to 24 nodes. The subsequent discussion was around questioning
whether you need IB for up to 16-24 nodes.
The advantage you point to is for 32 nodes. There is no question that IB is
much better at thi
At 21:01 30.01.2008, Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
whenever I ask about IB bandwidth, people always point fingers
at weather codes, which apparently are fond of doing the transpose
in multi-dimension FFT's using all-to-all. while convenient, this
seems a bit silly, since transpose is O(N)
16 matches
Mail list logo
