Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 02:55:08 09/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
Hi, My comments inline. Regards Mridul On September 03, 2003 at 12:04:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 03, 2003 at 05:13:07, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > <snip> >>If it was just a bunch of tweaks that you mention here - I would love to see how >>much performance it will give on a 64/128 proc NUMA box :) >>I can make a guess - it will suck a**. (No offence to anyone here) > >You are mixing apples and oranges. How will it do on a 128 node SMP >box? How will it do on a 128 node NUMA box? _both_ will not do very well >since things are not tuned for that many processors. However, the original >NUMA port did pretty well on a 32 CPU box. Not as well as it would have done >on a 32 CPU SMP box however. But then NUMA won't _ever_ produce the same >level of performance as pure SMP boxes will. They are just much more >affordable. > If you properly design and implement a version of crafty _for_ NUMA and just "tweak" a current version for NUMA (that was orginally written for SMP ?!) - then do you expect both to give out same or even comparable performance ?!! Ofcourse - I never said crafty wont work - it will - but the performance will be pathetic as compared to the NUMA version. Most likely the performance on a 64 proc NUMA box will turn out to be better than a 128 proc NUMA box !! Hence - to get this working properly on NUMA boxes (not itsy bitsy 8 or 16 proc machines - though 16 proc box would be pretty cool to own ;) ) then you _do_ need a redesign and reimplementation - not a bunch of tweaks. When I say redesign/reimplementation - I'm only refering to search , and mem management : that is what is usually required. <snip> >>
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.