[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.
Craig Tierney ctierney at HPTI.comWed Nov 17 08:24:50 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 Tue, 2004-11-16 at 17:07, Mark Hahn wrote: > > Mmm ... from your 2003 Hot Chips presentation on Elan 4 I see 231 > > nanos. Which is right, or are we talking about two different things? > > AFAICT, the 25ns figure is for an individual 8-port xbar chip, > and a full-sized switch is three stages of these. but 6*25!=231. > I believe there's at least one quadrics doc that quotes 300ns for > the switch. perhaps the 231 number is derived from average latency > (since some ports are just one xbar away)? > > also, isn't SGI's numalink network a dual fat-tree? they're claiming > 1.1 us latency these days (though again, that might be averaged over > all possible paths...) Is that shmem latency or MPI latency? I think that the MPI latency is closer to 2 u/s. Craig
- 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
