Hi all,
Under normal circumstances I would agree that the request for all 48 cores
in the machine is overkill but this particular machine has a highly
specialised FPGA card in it to do most of the heavy lifting when running a
specific set of analysis that has been tuned to run with the card. It ca
Of course, if you charge for your cluster time, that hurts them in the wallet,
since they pay for all the allocated unused time. If you don’t charge (which
is the case for us) it’s hard to incentivise them not to do this. Shame works,
a bit. We publish cluster analytics showing CPU efficiency
on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 21:39:20 +1100 Chris Samuel wrote:
If this is, as I suspect is likely, bioinformatics code it could well
be that
it is a pipeline type application and only part of the application may
be able
to make use of parallelism (and then might not be very good at it).
Exactly. Sup
48 cores sounds like a lot. Perhaps hyper-threading is turned on? If
so, try running with 24 cpus to see if you get the same or better
performance than 48.
-FEACluster.com
___
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 21:39:20 +1100
Chris Samuel wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 8:09:20 PM AEDT Peter Kjellström wrote:
>
> > If you got only a 4x performance reduction when running a 48x over
> > subscribe on 1/48 the amount of cores then something is wrong with
> > your base line. That
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 8:09:20 PM AEDT Peter Kjellström wrote:
> If you got only a 4x performance reduction when running a 48x over
> subscribe on 1/48 the amount of cores then something is wrong with
> your base line. That is, the "run without queue system" case seems
> suspicsious.
If th
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:47:42 +1100
Nick Evans wrote:
> Thanks Brian / Carl / Chris for places to look it turned out to
> be what Chris had mentioned and they were only requesting 1 CPU but
> trying to use all 48 in the machine.
If you got only a 4x performance reduction when running a 48x ove
