[Beowulf] Re: 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.
Chris Sideroff cnsidero at syr.eduMon Nov 15 19:10:05 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] BWBUG meeting, November 16, 2004 at McLean VA, DoD HPC moderization
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg Lindahl wrote: > In short, you don't want to ever make any any generalization about CFD > as a whole. You need to specify the solution technique and data size > at a minimum. Yes and the problem is compounded even more when you do not have the source code. And as I mentioned in another reply it is likely that fluent's number one goal is not speed but robustness, stability and general usability. By including the ability to use all the models that they do _has_ to degrade the performance as well as having very different performance characteristics than specific (in-house) CFD codes do. Chris SIderoff
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] BWBUG meeting, November 16, 2004 at McLean VA, DoD HPC moderization
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
