[Beowulf] Q: IB message rate & large core counts (per node)?
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.
Gilad Shainer Shainer at mellanox.comFri Feb 19 14:36:34 PST 2010
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Q: IB message rate & large core counts (per node)?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Q: IB message rate & large core counts (per node)?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nice to hear from you Greg, hope all is well. I don't forget anything, at least for now. OSU has different benchmarks so you can measure message coalescing or real message rate. Funny to read that Q hated coalescing when they created the first benchmark for that ...:-) but lets not argue on that. Nowadays it seems that QLogic promotes the message rate as non coalescing data and I almost got bought by their marketing machine till I looked on at the data on the wire... interesting what the bits and bytes and symbols can tell you... -----Original Message----- From: beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org [mailto:beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Lindahl Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:06 PM To: beowulf at beowulf.org Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Q: IB message rate & large core counts (per node)? > Mellanox latest message rate numbers with ConnectX-2 more than > doubled versus the old cards, and are for real message rate - > separate messages on the wire. The competitor numbers are with using > message coalescing, so it is not real separate messages on the wire, > or not really message rate. Gilad, I think you forgot which side you're supposed to be supporting. The only people I have ever seen publish message rate with coalesced messages are DK Panda (with Mellanox cards) and Mellanox. QLogic always hated coalesced messages, and if you look back in the archive for this mailing list, you'll see me denouncing coalesced messages as meanless about 1 microsecond after the first result was published by Prof. Panda. Looking around the Internet, I don't see any numbers ever published by PathScale/QLogic using coalesced messages. At the end of the day, the only reason microbenchmarks are useful is when they help explain why one interconnect does better than another on real applications. No customer should ever choose which adapter to buy based on microbenchmarks. -- greg (formerly employed by QLogic) _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Q: IB message rate & large core counts (per node)?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Q: IB message rate & large core counts (per node)?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
