Advice for 2nd cluster installation
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.
Joe Landman landman at scalableinformatics.comFri Jan 10 08:41:08 PST 2003
- Previous message: Advice for 2nd cluster installation
- Next message: Advice for 2nd cluster installation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 21:33, Kwan Wing Keung wrote: > The question is: will there be a timing difference in case a processor > in the 3rd blade, insider the 3rd chassis, is trying to communicate > (through MPI) to a processor in another blade within the SAME chassis, > as compared to another processor in a blade housed within ANOTHER > chassis. Yes. You are increasing the number of switch hops by at least 1. There will be a timing difference, unless you get a blade system which uses a secondary network on each blade to connect directly to the same switch (such as a Myrinet, or an "Infiniband" unit). > A sales from a vendor answered me that there should be some difference, > as the communication within a blader centre will go through the > back-plane. Once it goes out from the blade centre, the communication > has to go through an inter-chassis switch, thereby should have some > timing difference. He further told me that it is the beauty of That is substantially correct. > the "infiniteband" which I don't have any experience. Infiniband. Not many do have this experience yet. > However another sales answered me that they should be the same, > because all processors within the entire "rack" should have distinct > IP addresses, and the communication between any 2 processors should > be fair and equal. Sounds like a sales person who didn't have their techie on the line with them. They are wrong. In one chassis, using the supplied networks on the blades, you have an internal 10/100 or (preferably) GigE switch. Between chassis, you should have a GigE switch. Look at it as a hierarchy. Draw a blade. Put a circle around the blade. Draw the 7u rack mount around the blade, put a circle around that. Your communication path crosses circles, which represent boundaries, and hence latency and bandwidth limitations. The circles represent network/communications bus fabric boundaries. Boundary crossings cost time and bandwidth. You are drawing a logical picture of the network. If you have a different network fabric than the internal 7u switch network, draw your blades residing in that switch (large circle). With Myrinet or its ilk (Quadrics, DolphinICS, et al) the latter picture emerges (star network up to a point, then structure beyond that as node counts exceed switch capacity). There you have nearly the same latency/bandwidth between every pair of ports, so it doesnt matter which blade center your unit is in. You cross the boundary effectively twice (going into and out of a blade). With the internal switches in use rather than the Myrinet type devices, you cross 2 sets of boundaries to go out of a blade, and 2 sets to go in. 4 effective hops versus 2. -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Scalable Informatics LLC, email: landman at scalableinformatics.com web : http://scalableinformatics.com phone: +1 734 612 4615
- Previous message: Advice for 2nd cluster installation
- Next message: Advice for 2nd cluster installation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
