[Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
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.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pathscale.comTue Nov 9 19:06:27 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:45:12PM -0500, Chris Sideroff wrote: > I have had the luxury of testing an SCI 2D torus cluster and found > latency performance to be exceptional. Right. So is that a feature of the NIC, or a feature of the torus instead of a fat tree/CLOS/CBB network? Answer: the NIC. There are several examples of low-latency fat tree/CLOS/CBB networks. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list