CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > CFX

using core i7 cpu for parallel solving

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree2Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 29, 2010, 07:13
Default using core i7 cpu for parallel solving
  #1
Senior Member
 
feizaghaee's Avatar
 
moein
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 132
Rep Power: 7
feizaghaee is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to feizaghaee
hi. does anybody know how can i use whole capacity of my core i7 cpu (i mean 8 core of cpu). i can work with 4 core of my cpu but task manager shows 50% cpu usage. i want to know when task manager shows 50% usage how many cores are working and can i run a problem with 100% cpu usage. when i run CFX solver i choose MPICH parallel for windows with 4 partitions. can i choose 8 partitions how? my Ansys CFX's version is 11.
feizaghaee is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2010, 07:28
Default
  #2
Member
 
james britton
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 7
jbritton is on a distinguished road
see link: CFX and i7
jbritton is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2010, 08:32
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
feizaghaee's Avatar
 
moein
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 132
Rep Power: 7
feizaghaee is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to feizaghaee
this topic dosen't contain whole of my questions. 50% usage of task manager isn't discussed. i want to know how many cores are working.
feizaghaee is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2010, 10:08
Default
  #4
Member
 
Michiel
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 8
Michiel is on a distinguished road
50% of 8 is 4... The numbers 4 and 8 are mentioned in the other topic.
Michiel is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2010, 10:24
Default
  #5
Member
 
james britton
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 7
jbritton is on a distinguished road
^^^ lol,

Thank you for saving me the effort.

If memory serves me CFX 11 will only run on 2 cores unless you have additional parallel licenses enabling further processors to run. A core can be called a processor in this case.

So 50% load means you running it on 2 cores(4/100*50=2)or (4/2=2), this may well show up as 4 but this is due to hyperthreading.

With hyperthreading the theoretical number of cores is 8 again (8/100*50=4) so yes 4 is 50% of 8

In the writing of this my IQ feels like it has dropped 50% because all of this was discussed in the other thread!
jbritton is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2010, 15:52
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
feizaghaee's Avatar
 
moein
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 132
Rep Power: 7
feizaghaee is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to feizaghaee
thanks a lot. i asked this question becuase in that topic, 4 cores was mentioned as whole capacity of core i7 and 8 cores was mentioned as result of hyperthreading technology but CFX dosen't take any advantages from this feature. but you said 4 cores are half of the capacity. using 8 cores was mentioned useless. how can i install parallel license. tanks
feizaghaee is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 30, 2010, 06:31
Default
  #7
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,951
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Installation of parallel licenses is discussed in the CFX manual. If you currently have 4 parallel licenses but wish to waste money by running 8 processes on a single i7 CPU then talk to your CFX rep to purchase extra licenses.

I think I said that in the other thread didn't I? It's deja vu all over again. (That was meant to be a bad joke by the way)
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 30, 2010, 08:45
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
feizaghaee's Avatar
 
moein
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 132
Rep Power: 7
feizaghaee is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to feizaghaee
tanks a lot for your kind attention
feizaghaee is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 10, 2011, 05:17
Default
  #9
Member
 
Max
Join Date: May 2011
Location: old europe
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 6
murx is on a distinguished road
I want to get back to this topic again.
In my case licenses are not the constraint. I have enough licenses available to run CFX on 8 cores.

Glenn, in the other thread you said
Quote:
CFX has not been complied to use hyperthreading. Don't use it. Just leave the virtual cores sit idle or even better disable them in the BIOS.
I absolutely understand that using all 8 virtual cores does not give me a huge advantage. But if I let 4 of the virtual cores sit idle, isn't that a huge disadvantage compared to disabled hyperthreading? Because... like soembody said in this thread... Windows taskmanager shows only 50% CPU load.

So if I have enough licenses available, isn't it better to use all 8 cores? And is there rough estimate how much using 8 cores in hyperthreading is inferior to using 4 cores with hyperthreading disabled?
murx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 10, 2011, 06:03
Default
  #10
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,951
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Do the test yourself then! Run a benchmark case with 4 processes and another with 8. I bet the 8 case is either barely faster than the 4, or more likely to be slower.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 30, 2011, 10:00
Default
  #11
Member
 
Max
Join Date: May 2011
Location: old europe
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 6
murx is on a distinguished road
Ok, I did the test. Here's the results, for those who are interested:




What I did was a one-phase simulation on a mesh with approx. 2 Mio. elements. I ran the simulation in HP MPI Local Parallel except for the 1core run - that was run in serial mode. I measured the time for 10 outer loops. The value in the chart is the inverse of this time, normalized with the 1-core value.
monkey1 and metmet like this.
murx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 30, 2011, 13:50
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
Erik
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Earth (Land portion)
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 10
evcelica is on a distinguished road
great, thanks for doing this. Do you have results with hyperthreading disabled to see how that affects performance?
evcelica is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 31, 2011, 03:27
Default
  #13
Member
 
Max
Join Date: May 2011
Location: old europe
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 6
murx is on a distinguished road
Unfortunately, I don't think I am authorized to change any BIOS settings. But I will reboot and try to do so as soon as my current simulation is finished.
murx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 31, 2011, 06:53
Default
  #14
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,951
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
I assume you have a 4 core CPU - in that case the 4 core result will be close enough to the no-hyperthreading result.

A speedup factor of 2 at 4 cores on a modern CPU is not very good. You should be able to do better than that. What CPU do you have? Are you sure you are not running out of memory?
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 31, 2011, 17:35
Default
  #15
Senior Member
 
Erik
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Earth (Land portion)
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 10
evcelica is on a distinguished road
Glenn, are you saying having hyper-threading on is better for CFX?
(8 with HT is better than 4 w/o) and (4 with HT is equal to 4 w/o)? roughly of course.


I was somewhat disappointed by this scaling too, what are the specs on your memory?
evcelica is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 31, 2011, 18:28
Default
  #16
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,951
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
CFX has not been compiled to make use of hyperthreading. On or off it will not make much difference.

My question about memory is because a possible explanation of the poor performance is you have run out of memory and the machine is paging. You will not get a good parallel speed up if it is paging.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 1, 2011, 05:56
Default
  #17
Member
 
Max
Join Date: May 2011
Location: old europe
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 6
murx is on a distinguished road
The CPU is an i7-2600 and the memory size is 8 GB. I do not remember the exact memory usage during those test runs. But on similar runs, the amount of memory used is about 4.5 GB.

I expected a bigger speedup factor, too.
murx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 1, 2011, 21:44
Default
  #18
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,951
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
What time are you reporting? The setup and shut down of a simulation does not scale with multi processors, only the solver time. If you look in the output file the solver time is reported after the last iteration, and the total time is reported at the end.

You should only use solver time to work our speed up factors.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 2, 2011, 04:49
Default
  #19
Member
 
Max
Join Date: May 2011
Location: old europe
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 6
murx is on a distinguished road
I actually measured the time by hand using the windows clock, since I did not care for a very high precision

My start time was the time when the first iteration step started and the stop time was the time when the last residuals of the 10th iteration step were plotted. So i did not count for the time necessary for mesh partitioning and so on...
murx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 2, 2011, 06:44
Default
  #20
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,951
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
OK, but it is easier to use the time recorded in the output fine. Then you don't need to watch text files scroll past. More accurate too.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Superlinear speedup in OpenFOAM 13 msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 18 March 3, 2015 06:36
Moving mesh Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 122 June 15, 2014 06:20
Differences between serial and parallel runs carsten OpenFOAM Bugs 11 September 12, 2008 11:16
IcoFoam parallel woes msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 9 July 22, 2007 02:58
Could anybody help me see this error and give help liugx212 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 January 4, 2006 19:07


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:07.