Timeline for Optimizing MPICH2 on FX 9370 processor
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 2015 at 10:44 | vote | accept | ipcamit | ||
| Aug 9, 2014 at 6:11 | comment | added | ipcamit | Sorry for such a long hiatus but there were lots of issues. The Murphy's law was at work, after all the efforts they still could not bring it back online. In the mean i tried few more software like material studio but same problem persists. So i am afraid i cannot provide any more data :( | |
| Feb 17, 2014 at 4:59 | comment | added | ipcamit | I apologize profusely for the delay, but recently there were certain serious problems with opteron cluster so i will upload the required data as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance so far. sorry again | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 19:18 | comment | added | Bill Barth | It would be very helpful if you put the timings for the data in your original question in a format where the results for both cards was comparable side-by-side. These runs you have just posted contemplate thousands of seconds, and the times in your original question is tens of seconds. I can't understand how to make a comparison with what you've given. | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 15:35 | comment | added | ipcamit | Sorry for the delay. I deleted my earlier comment to avoid any confusion. Anyway... yes the time give above are time take in completing each calculation as provided by "time mpirun..." command. Please find below the detailed set of timing on Opteron 6272. I have provided all the data regarding communication from the obtained output file. Please let me know if u want anything more pastebin.com/jg2i09cv | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 4:35 | comment | added | Bill Barth | Thanks, but I wanted to compare the 9370 to the 6272 since you said the 6272 was faster. Maybe I'll see something in the data. With the data we have here, I'm having a hard time understanding why the times are getting longer as you add cores. They should either get shorter (with a fixed size problem) or stay nearly flat (with a fixed size problem per core). Are you adding together the times of various tasks within each run? | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 4:14 | comment | added | ipcamit | Thank you for replying Bill. Scaling by linux kernel should not be an issue as earlier while trying to install ATLAS math library I disabled it. Now it runs on single frequency, thought i will check once more. Can you be bit more specific about CPMD results (which)? Here is list of time taken by some simulation with respect to number of processes. (On same as well as different nodes, connected by Gbit ethernet). pastebin.com/8m2JXFMR | |
| Feb 13, 2014 at 13:38 | history | answered | Bill Barth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |