Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:35:45 07/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2003 at 14:37:25, Jay Urbanski wrote: >On July 07, 2003 at 10:48:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 05, 2003 at 23:37:47, Jay Urbanski wrote: >> >>>On July 04, 2003 at 23:33:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>>>"way better than MPI". Both use TCP/IP, just like PVM. Except that MPI/OpenMP >>>>is designed for homogeneous clusters while PVM works with heterogeneous mixes. >>>>But for any of the above, the latency is caused by TCP/IP, _not_ the particular >>>>library being used. >>> >>>With latency a concern I don't know why you'd use TCP/IP as the transport for >>>MPI when there are much faster ones available. >>> >>>Even VIA over Ethernet would be an improvement. >> >>I use VIA over ethernet, and VIA over a cLAN giganet switch as well. The >>cLAN hardware produces .5usec latench which is about 1000X better than any >>TCP/IP-ethernet implementation. However, ethernet will never touch good >>hardware like the cLAN stuff. >> >>MPI/PVM use ethernet - tcp/ip for one obvious reason: "portability" and >>"availability". :) > >Well, there are plenty of MPI/PVM implementations that don't TCP/IP. MPICH-GM, >for instance, and PVM-GM over Myrinet. If you're planning to use a cluster for >chess, I would imagine you'd use the fastest switch available and bypasss TCP/IP >for performance reasons. I have PVM running on our giganet switch, which is faster than myrinet. But, as I said, such clusters are _rare_. TCP/IP is the common cluster connection, for obvious reasons. And that's where the interest in clusters lies, not in how exotic a combination you can put together, but in what kind of performance you can extract from a common combination.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.