Motherboard / Benchmark Questions...

Chris charwel at
Thu Jun 15 08:30:38 PDT 2000

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Robert G. Brown wrote:
> independence times and so forth.  I'd be happy to look over your
> problem/solution if you like to see if I think that it would make any
> difference to use an e.g. typewriter or checkerboard algorithm instead
> of random site selection.  The general rule is that if you are
> As a general rule, by the way, random site selection is the SLOWEST
> method to converge, slower even than a shuffled (random without
> replacement) selection strategy.  This is because the Poissonian process
> leaves a lot of sites unvisited in any given Monte Carlo sweep.  In
> fact, for a large lattice, there are often sites that aren't visited for
> MANY sweeps.  These sites significantly delay the thermalization
> process.

Dr. Brown,

Could you discuss the typewrite, checkerboard and
 random site selection algorithms for MC a bit more? 
I think to the extent they would effect the time to completion
because of cache locality that more information on the algorithm
is on topic for the list.  I am certainly interested :>


charwel at

More information about the Beowulf mailing list