[flotus1]

To be honest, I had to look up what a backport is first.
Too old for what, or how would I even begin to check whether the exact kernel of my distro is too old for my hardware? Officially, 4.12 is recent enough for Naples.

[Simbelmynë]

Originally Posted by flotus1

To be honest, I had to look up what a backport is first.
Too old for what, or how would I even begin to check whether the exact kernel of my distro is too old for my hardware? Officially, 4.12 is recent enough for Naples.

There are a few improvements with each kernel version that may or may not have an impact on performance. Sometimes there are regressions as well.


Probably this is no big deal, but if you wish to get the last few % out of your system then it may be worth checking out.


The easiest way to check is to just install a newer kernel. OpenSUSE can probably do this through YaST, and if you break your system you should be able to return to the stable kernel.

[flotus1]

I have done my fair share of experiments with installing newer kernel versions. My takeaway is that I won't do it on a system I intend to actually use
I will leave that to people who know what they are doing.

As a side-note: I tried a few different compiler optimizations. Seems like there are no significant gains here, barely above the margin of error.

[ctd]

2X EPYC 7302, 16x16GB 2Rx8 DDR4-3200 ECC, OpenFOAM v5, Ubuntu 18.04.3

# cores   Wall time (s):
------------------------
1 723.64
2 328.11
4 164.21
8 81.4
12 55.2
16 41.1
20 37.53
24 34.27
28 29.99
32 26.89

[flotus1]

Hot damn!

[Simbelmynë]

So it seems that the architecture performs better than just looking at the increased memory bandwidth.


EPYC 7301: 36.8 s @ 2666 MT/s



EPYC 7302: 26.9 s @ 3200 MT/s


That is impressive!



From Ryzen 3000 it can be seen that (all) the timings of the memory can play a huge role. Perhaps the XMP profiles and motherboard auto timings are better in tune with this release?


Edit: Can you also test this with OpenFOAM v7? Most of the benchmarks here are with v6 or v7.

[ctd]

Sure, below are the results with v7.

2X EPYC 7302, 16x16GB 2Rx8 DDR4-3200 ECC, Ubuntu 18.04.3, OF v7

# cores   Wall time (s):
 ------------------------
1 711.73
2 345.65
4 164.97
8 84.15
12 55.9
16 47.45
20 38.14
24 34.21
28 30.51
32 26.89

[mh-cfd]

Originally Posted by ctd

2X EPYC 7302, 16x16GB 2Rx8 DDR4-3200 ECC, OpenFOAM v5, Ubuntu 18.04.3

# cores   Wall time (s):
------------------------
1 723.64
2 328.11
4 164.21
8 81.4
12 55.2
16 41.1
20 37.53
24 34.27
28 29.99
32 26.89

Wow, very impressive results! Could you please tell us which motherboard did you use? Because it's quite hard to find one that supports Rome officially. I've read on supermicro's site that some old motherboards do support Rome processors (with full 3200 MT bandwidth) but the motherboards have to be "revision 2". I don't know what that means, maybe it's just an updated bios...

Regards

[flotus1]

I can not tell you where to buy compatible motherboards, since I had the same problem. But I can answer the rest of your question:

On numerous occasions, AMD reiterated their claim that all SP3 Platforms will be able to get an upgrade from Naples to Rome. A promise they could not keep.
The alleged reason (German site): https://www.planet3dnow.de/cms/49742...en-bios-chips/
Most retail SP3 motherboards shipped with a 16MB ROM. The bios version for Rome require 32MB ROMs. Hence many board revisions 1.x will never get support for Rome. There will not be a bios update, the hardware is incompatible.
Board revisions 2.x solve this, mainly with a bigger ROM chip. So new hardware revision, not just a software update. Of course, these new revisions of older boards still lack support for some features of Epyc Rome, for example PCIe 4.0. When in the market for one of these boards, contact the retailer beforehand, and make sure they ship rev. 2.x.
Actual new versions of retail boards with full feature support for Rome were announced, but have not yet been spotted in the wild.
The lack availability is a recurring theme with AMD Epyc, unfortunately.

[flotus1]

Originally Posted by ctd

2X EPYC 7302, 16x16GB 2Rx8 DDR4-3200 ECC, OpenFOAM v5, Ubuntu 18.04.3
[...]

Forgot to ask: did you run this in NUMA or UMA mode? AMD calls it NPS4 if I am not mistaken.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694...epyc-2nd-gen/6

[ctd]

flotus1,
It was run in the default, "one NUMA domain per socket". I haven't had the opportunity yet to experiment with the options in:
https://developer.amd.com/wp-content...56745_0.75.pdf

I can try running the NPS4 setting if you're interested, but I may need some guidance on how to set it. I didn't initially see it in the bios, but could have missed it.

mh-cfd,
The Motherboard is a SuperMicro H11DSi version 2.0. It was purchased from https://www.interpromicro.com/ based on a tip from the thread below:
https://forums.servethehome.com/inde...yc-rome.25430/

[flotus1]

Due to an appalling lack of Epyc Rome equipment on my part, I can not help you with finding that bios option. But I would not be surprised if Supermicro just left it out. "Screw that noise, more options would just confuse our customers"

It is partly out of curiosity, but I also think it should give you some better performance with NUMA-aware software like OpenFOAM.

[jakethejake]

2 x AMD EPYC 7371, 16 x 16GB DDR4 Dual-Rank, Supermicro h11dsi
Windows 10 Pro Vers. 1903 Build 18362.418 - WSL Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
OpenFOAM-6 (precompiled package from openfoam.org)

# cores   Wall time (s):
------------------------
1 1254.01
2 447.25
4 212.51
6 139.17
8 101.92
12 88.24
16 88.04
20 83.5
24 74.72
28 70.44
32 87.87

I expected it to be worse than native Linux OS installed. But anyway its slower than I expected from what I see around here.
Any ideas? Or is it just windows 10?

[flotus1]

WSL = Windows subsystem for linux?

It might not be the best solution if you want near bare-metal performance. You might want to try a dockerized version of Openfoam, or a proper VM.

[Simbelmynë]

My experience is that the WSL is almost as fast as native Linux for this benchmark. Writing to disk often should be avoided though.


Here is some (old) information. WSL has seen improvements after this post.


https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...900x-wsl&num=1

[SLC]

Originally Posted by ctd

flotus1,
It was run in the default, "one NUMA domain per socket". I haven't had the opportunity yet to experiment with the options in:
https://developer.amd.com/wp-content...56745_0.75.pdf

I can try running the NPS4 setting if you're interested, but I may need some guidance on how to set it. I didn't initially see it in the bios, but could have missed it.

mh-cfd,
The Motherboard is a SuperMicro H11DSi version 2.0. It was purchased from https://www.interpromicro.com/ based on a tip from the thread below:
https://forums.servethehome.com/inde...yc-rome.25430/

Are you able to run Fluent benchmarks?

[HBH_aero]

Hi!

Is the below the only EPYC Rome benchmark available here?

I am looking to get a new Linux workstation, currently considering the Epyc Rome CPUs.

By the way - looks really promising from the below results!

Originally Posted by ctd

2X EPYC 7302, 16x16GB 2Rx8 DDR4-3200 ECC, OpenFOAM v5, Ubuntu 18.04.3

# cores   Wall time (s):
------------------------
1 723.64
2 328.11
4 164.21
8 81.4
12 55.2
16 41.1
20 37.53
24 34.27
28 29.99
32 26.89

[flotus1]

Yes, these are the only Epyc Rome results we have so far.
Yet I don't think you can go wrong with them. Especially for a general purpose workstation, they are a huge improvement over 1st gen due to the less complicated NUMA topology.

[SLC]

I’m in contact with a compute service provider who is offering to perhaps benchmark some fluent cases for me on a dual 7302 setup. Will post back if I get it done.

[HBH_aero]

I agree flotus1 - maybe the doubled L3 cache has a say too?
Wondering if they manage to increase the clock freq in the future.