[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.
Patrick Geoffray patrick at myri.comFri Nov 12 15:07:31 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 ]
Chris Sideroff wrote: > Another thing I'm looking at is the hardware vendors experience with > Fluent. Since, there is no option of tuning the code it is quite > important that the vendor have had some experiences with other customers > using it. And even better, if the technicians are willing to provide > support for Fluent with their product. Dolphin has been _extremely_ > helpful in this respect, providing an SCI cluster for me to test Fluent > and offering suggestions for running it (thanks Simen). Most cluster resellers provides access to testbeds and Fluent is a very popular applications. At 32 nodes, I don't expect the Fluent performance to be much different between most HPC interconnects. Price and practical reasons would be the decisive factors here, IMHO. Patrick -- Patrick Geoffray Myricom, Inc. http://www.myri.com
- 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
