[Beowulf] Re: vectors vs. loops
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.
Josip Loncaric josip at lanl.govWed May 4 08:19:35 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: vectors vs. loops
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: vectors vs. loops
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > > > You shift the bandwidth problem of the expensive network in that case to > the processor itself. That may work for games, but not for everyone. A common operation like C = A + B is very fast when A, B, and C are small enough to fit into the cache simultaneously. However, for scientific computing, the size of these vectors could be 1 GB each (per CPU!), and the problem is memory bandwidth bound. Today's memory bandwidths cannot support full CPU speed on a problem like this. A fact of life in scientific computing, e.g. CFD, is that the workload resembles "C=A+B". People try to get better reuse of data in cache, but there is only so much that an algorithm will allow. Thus, memory (and network) bandwidths remain the main bottleneck. Sincerely, Josip
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: vectors vs. loops
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: vectors vs. loops
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
