[Beowulf] using two separate networks for different data streams
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.
Ricardo Reis rreis at aero.ist.utl.ptFri Jan 27 08:56:33 PST 2006
- Previous message: [Beowulf] using two separate networks for different data streams
- Next message: [Beowulf] using two separate networks for different data streams
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
First, Hi all and thanks for your answers. Were truly useful. Which brings me to... On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Mark Hahn wrote: > I wonder whether anyone has critically evaluated whether this is important. > cluster people I talk to like to say fuzzy things like "separate networks > make the cluster breathe better". > > as much as I admire car analogies, I observe that when apps are doing IO, > they tend not to be doing MPI. if your workload is like that, bonding > rather than partitioning would actually improve performance. I wonder > whether the partitioning approach might actual reflect other constraints, > such as using half-duplex hubs, or low-bisection networks. as anyone comments on this? because it hit my next question, if anyone had experiences (measurable) of performance. I've also read/heard about load balancing the network, I figure this is using the two network cards but having a network loadbalancing (software? hardware) attached and take the utmost from both network cards. any one has ideas about this? best regards, Ricardo Reis "Non Serviam" n.p.: http://radio.ist.utl.pt n.r.: http://atumtenorio.blogspot.com <- Send with Pine Linux/Unix/Win/Mac OS->
- Previous message: [Beowulf] using two separate networks for different data streams
- Next message: [Beowulf] using two separate networks for different data streams
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
