diskless clients? beowulf-newbie seeks advice
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Jared Hodge jared_hodge at iat.utexas.eduFri Jun 22 14:42:34 PDT 2001
- Previous message: diskless clients? beowulf-newbie seeks advice
- Next message: diskless clients? beowulf-newbie seeks advice
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> I partially agree. Your thoughs on memory management?. Swap over Network > would decrease greatly the performance, so in my opinion you are limited to > non-memory-consuming computations Wow, someone asking for my thoughts, how gratifying. Really this may sound a little trite, but if you're having to intensively swap for a single application, you're already up the creek without a paddle. Really as cheap as memory is, you can load up your nodes with a few Gigs each and there shouldn't be much of a problem. In fact, we've got hard disks on our cluster, but I have swapping disabled because I want the programs to crash when they try to swap. I know that sounds strange, but I would rather our programmers (who are physicists, not computer scientists) know that something is wrong when they try a new code that is overly liberal with memory usage, than wonder why the cluster (that I am responsible for maintaining) is running so slow. That way, if they want to get around the total actual memory available, they have to explicitly write to files and free some memory. This extra work really motivates them to use memory efficiently. I'm willing to turn swapping on for specific runs if they could justify why they need it (I'm sure we could work it into the PBS script), but so far the issue hasn't come up (I think it's kind of cool how I've used their ignorance to their and my advantage). Really, swapping is best at keeping desktop PC's running even when they are overextended. I don't think swapping is appropriate (in most circumstances) in high performance computing. > > IMHO Cray's are another beasts. Each micro has access to the main memory via > a high-speed bus. Thats not my situation (100Mbps) and probably not the > situation of most beowulfs Very true, Cray's are "currently" very different from clusters. However as GigE-Myrinet level networks become more common, the distinction becomes a little more blurry. 100 Mbps is probably not enough to support any type of network swapping, much less for large numbers of nodes (although really the latency is more of an issue than the bandwidth if you use a clever network topology). Also, I really think we've started to get even "The Mighty Cray's" attention with our little Beowulf project, and if their smart they are heading more towards cluster styled systems also. Really, I can't even tell the difference anymore between a true "supercomputer" and a cluster. They may have the price and performance increase of using non-COTS hardware, but the goal is the same - to get parallel jobs done. -- Jared Hodge Institute for Advanced Technology The University of Texas at Austin 3925 W. Braker Lane, Suite 400 Austin, Texas 78759 Phone: 512-232-4460 Fax: 512-471-9096 Email: Jared_Hodge at iat.utexas.edu
- Previous message: diskless clients? beowulf-newbie seeks advice
- Next message: diskless clients? beowulf-newbie seeks advice
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
