Hi, I am new on Clusters and have some doubts about them.
I am used to work with Arch Linux. What do you think about it?
And finnaly, I would like to know if Is it possible to get a Cluster Working
with a Server on Arch Linux and the nodes Windows.
Or even better the nodes without a defined SO.
halo guys i wants to make a cluster system with mpich in ubuntu,,but i have
troubleshooting with mpich..
but when i run the example program in mpich..it doesn't work in cluster..but
i've registered the node on machine.LINUX..
but still not working
please help me..this is my thesis...
__
Has anyone tried out UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) in
the BIOS? The new servers I am buying come with this option in the
BIOS. Out of curiosity I googled it up.
I am not sure if there were any HPC implications of this and wanted to
double check before I switched to this from my conv
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:26:13AM -0500, Stuart Barkley wrote:
>
> If the fortran code is doing virtual subscripts (e.g. array2(i*2 + j))
> it would likely generate about the same code as the compiler would
> generate for 2 dimensions. In theory, the compiler can generate
> better subscript com
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Enjoy the performance increase, if you haven't still. To us it
> increased around 33% in conjunction with running 8 CPUs. It seems to
> me that groups may be useful to run with more nodes and not just one
> machine but I haven't
Hi all and Thanks you all.
It is making quite good sense.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Michael H. Frese <
michael.fr...@numerex-llc.com> wrote:
> At 06:26 AM 11/12/2009, Stuart Barkley wrote:
>
>> At 03:40 PM 11/11/2009, Peter St. John wrote:
>> > The difference between:
>> > arr
At 06:26 AM 11/12/2009, Stuart Barkley wrote:
At 03:40 PM 11/11/2009, Peter St. John wrote:
> The difference between:
> array1(1:6)
> array2(1:2, 1:3)
>
> would be reflected in the size of the executable, not the size
> of the data.
> Right?
On Thu, 12
At 03:40 PM 11/11/2009, Peter St. John wrote:
> The difference between:
> array1(1:6)
> array2(1:2, 1:3)
>
> would be reflected in the size of the executable, not the size
> of the data.
> Right?
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 at 07:18 -, Michael H. Frese wrote
That's correct. The executable size would reflect the extra
operations required to compute the offset for the doubly dimensioned array.
Mike
At 03:40 PM 11/11/2009, Peter St. John wrote:
The difference between:
array1(1:6)
array2(1:2, 1:3)
would be reflected in the size of the execu
