|
[Sponsors] |
May 25, 2008, 09:32 |
Hello,
I'm interested in what
|
#1 |
Senior Member
Kārlis Repsons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Latvia
Posts: 111
Rep Power: 17 |
Hello,
I'm interested in what kind of networking people use for effective parallel CFD computing? When it is sufficient with some cat5 wiring + switches and when something faster, like Infiniband is necessary? Regards, Kārlis |
|
May 25, 2008, 11:23 |
It is strongly application and
|
#2 |
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 20 |
It is strongly application and code-dependend. As a rute of thumb:
For calculations on more than 16 cpus "normal" gigabyte ethernet is too slow mostly. Nevertheless it is also dependend on number of cores per node,... Regards |
|
May 25, 2008, 16:41 |
You mean > 16core machine?? El
|
#3 |
Senior Member
Kārlis Repsons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Latvia
Posts: 111
Rep Power: 17 |
You mean > 16core machine?? Else it makes some kind of nonsense to me - switch should be able to handle properly all of it's connects, isn't that right?
|
|
May 25, 2008, 17:35 |
I do not understand what you m
|
#4 |
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 20 |
I do not understand what you mean. Of course a switch can handle all. However, if you distribute a CFD case into more than about 16 parts communication overhead grows non-linear. That means for these cases with that much communication your network will definitely be the first bottleneck in cases of speed. This is refered to as speedup. If you run a case on one core you get a speedup of one. Running it on eg 8 cores has a theoretical speedup of 8 but you will only get less. And using gigabyte ethernet you will not get much quicker if you use 16 or 32 or 64 codes in general - of course this is case and architecture dependend. However using faster interconnects (eg infiniband) will give you further speedup if you switch from 16 to 32 parts... This is what I wanted to say.
All this is also dependend on number of cores per CPU and CPUs per node. Above numbers go for typical nodes with 2CPUs and 2 cores per CPU. I do not know to much about nodes with more cores on it... |
|
May 26, 2008, 05:18 |
So the story is about timestep
|
#5 |
Senior Member
Kārlis Repsons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Latvia
Posts: 111
Rep Power: 17 |
So the story is about timestep computing time compared with time necessary to exchange boundary values. Gigabyte network might have two speed problems: too little transfer speed and latencies. By dividing, typical timestep computing time and speedup decreases, if network is slower than inter-core communication.
Just curious: how much those infiniband NIcards cost? And ~30 port switch? |
|
May 26, 2008, 17:46 |
And please don't forget to fac
|
#6 |
Senior Member
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 703
Rep Power: 21 |
And please don't forget to factor in the memory bandwidth bottleneck when using multi-core CPUs. The more cores that share memory bandwith, the worse is the speedup (even if onboard core interconnects are used).
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFD clusters + bonded GigE? | Joe | Main CFD Forum | 8 | September 19, 2006 08:58 |
Clusters on linux: PVM vs. HP MPI | Alexey | CFX | 4 | February 8, 2006 11:33 |
Best CFX Platform for developing clusters | Javier O. Augusto | CFX | 0 | August 25, 2005 13:09 |
MPI on Clusters | wak | Siemens | 0 | September 19, 2004 23:03 |
Beowulf clusters | Sebastien Perron | Main CFD Forum | 18 | May 17, 2001 19:11 |