[Beowulf] x86-64 NUMA vs SMP kernel: appl. performance?
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.comFri Sep 24 12:31:10 PDT 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] x86-64 NUMA vs SMP kernel: appl. performance?
- Next message: [Beowulf] x86-64 NUMA vs SMP kernel: appl. performance?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:04:05PM -0400, Robert G. Brown wrote: > What compilers have you tried, and what improvements do they > produce? Robert, As you might recall, I do work for a compiler company, so obviously that should be kept in mind. The 3 apps mentioned by the original poster are Gaussian, Gamess, and NWChem. For NWChem we have a customer who reported this number for one dataset: | Opteron-2.2+portland group: | Total times cpu: 635.6s wall: 636.6 | | Opteron-2.2+pathscale-1.1: | Total times cpu: 514.4s wall: 515.5s | | Opteron-2.2+pathscale-1.2: | Total times cpu: 480.8s wall: 482.3s So that's 32% better wall time for this dataset. Here's a customer-reported result for GAMESS: > path CPU= 1 CPUTime= 124.84s WallTime= 126.10s > ifort CPU= 1 CPUTime= 148.10s WallTime= 148.20s > pgi CPU= 1 CPUTime= 224.17s WallTime= 225.60s I can't seem to find a customer-reported result for Gaussian, although several of our customers are running it. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] x86-64 NUMA vs SMP kernel: appl. performance?
- Next message: [Beowulf] x86-64 NUMA vs SMP kernel: appl. performance?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
