[Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
cnsidero at syr.edu
Tue Nov 9 20:09:22 PST 2004
Greg Lindahl wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:45:12PM -0500, Chris Sideroff wrote:
>> I have had the luxury of testing an SCI 2D torus cluster and found
>>latency performance to be exceptional.
> Right. So is that a feature of the NIC, or a feature of the torus
> instead of a fat tree/CLOS/CBB network? Answer: the NIC.
> There are several examples of low-latency fat tree/CLOS/CBB networks.
I realize that, which is why I was looking for other comments about
torus vs a (fat) tree networks. I suppose that sentence implied that
the low latency I seen was solely from the torus configuration - which
was not the intention. It was in reply to a preivous comment of the low
latency of fat tree connects which is also obtainable in torus networks
- essentially what you are saying :-)
As a side note, since my original post about this the Nov 2004 Top500
has come out. I did not realize the dominance that myrinet has on the
list - #1 with 38.6% share - while no other proprietary high-speed
interconnect is even close.
More information about the Beowulf