sorry ... not cut through
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.
Richard Walsh rbw at ahpcrc.orgWed May 15 11:56:23 PDT 2002
- Previous message: p4 v itinium
- Next message: We did it! (fwd)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:18:56PM Greg Lindahl wrote: > Cut-through vs. store-and-forward ought not affect bandwidth at all. Assuming both types of switches fully pipeline successive forwards and/or the cut-through vs. store-and-forward latency differences are a small percentage of the whole message/packet transfer time ... Yes? Can we assume the former for all swithes? Clearly they should be designed that way, but we did not get pre-fetch piplines from memory until fairly recently. Does someone know? The switch type might affect observable bandwidth for small to medium size messages where it is smaller to begin with especially if pipelining is absent. In the limit of small un-pipelined messages, latency defines bandwidth. rbw
- Previous message: p4 v itinium
- Next message: We did it! (fwd)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
