[Beowulf] Parallel Programming Question
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.
Ashley Pittman ashley at pittman.co.ukWed Jul 1 09:10:20 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Parallel Programming Question
- Next message: [Beowulf] Parallel Programming Question
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 23:30 -0700, Bill Broadley wrote: > Keep in mind that when you say broadcast that many (not all) MPI > implementations do not do a true network layer broadcast... and that > in most > situations network uplinks are distinct from the downlinks (except for > the > ACKs). > > If all clients need all input files you can achieve good performance > by either > using a bit torrent approach (send 1/N of the file to each of N > clients then > have them re-share it), or even just a simple chain. Head -> node A > -> node B > -> node C. This works better than you might think since Node A can > start > uploading immediately and the upload bandwidth doesn't compete with > the > download bandwidth (well not much usually). What you are recommending here is for Amjad to re-implement MPI_Broadcast() in his code which is something I would consider a very bad idea. The collectives are a part of MPI for a reason, it's a lot easier for the library to know about your machine than it is for you to know about it, having users re-code parts of the MPI library inside their application is both a waste of programmers time and is also likely to make the application run slower. Yours, Ashley Pittman. -- Ashley Pittman, Bath, UK. Padb - A parallel job inspection tool for cluster computing http://padb.pittman.org.uk
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Parallel Programming Question
- Next message: [Beowulf] Parallel Programming Question
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
