[Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
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.comMon Feb 14 11:07:37 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:47:15PM +0300, Mikhail Kuzminsky wrote: > Let me ask some stupid's question: which MPI implementations allow > really > > a) to overlap MPI_Isend w/computations > and/or > b) to perform a set of subsequent MPI_Isend calls faster than "the > same" set of MPI_Send calls ? > > I say only about sending of large messages. For large messages, everyone does (b) at least partly right. (a) is pretty rare. It's difficult to get (a) right without hurting short message performance. One of the commercial MPIs, at first release, had very slow short message performance because they thought getting (a) right was more important. They've improved their short message performance since, but I still haven't seen any real application benchmarks that show benefit from their approach. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
