CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Benchmarking in parallel

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 28, 2008, 14:19
Default Do me a favor and try booting
Posts: n/a
Do me a favor and try booting your kernel with the norandmaps kernel parameter and try the same benchmarks. It should reduce TLB misses and possibly increase cache hits for a very very minor trade off in security. If your on a firewalled network increased risk of being hacked is nil.
  Reply With Quote

Old   January 28, 2008, 14:31
Default I just figured out you don't e
Posts: n/a
I just figured out you don't even have to reboot. just write a 0 to the file /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space though a reboot will keep all running processes from having randomized memory allocation.
  Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2008, 04:12
Default Hi Nicolas, Do you really s
Senior Member
Jens Klostermann
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 117
Rep Power: 10
jens_klostermann is on a distinguished road
Hi Nicolas,

Do you really show efficiency or is it speedup?

In our experience the intel quadcore performs poor with respect to efficiency and speedup up to 8 cores (with worst performance for 8 cores). I think this is because of the architecture so try to go beyond those 8 cores.

If we compare OF to commercial solvers, we also see the in the lead (typically 30% to 100% faster ) and I am wondering why?


PS One suggestion I have is to reduce your NonOrthogonalCorrectors to 1, I don't think 2 are really necessary.
jens_klostermann is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2008, 05:31
Default Hello, Yes Jens, it should
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 10
nico765 is on a distinguished road

Yes Jens, it should probably be called speedup; i am plotting cpu_time_1cpu/cpu_time_X_cpu.
I'll try to test above 8 cores, not that easy to test here.

OF/commercial solvers:

*parallel efficiency/speedup: the commercial solver we have here is performing worst -> speed-up is worst.

*but convergence AND time/iteration is better for the commercial solver.

In the end OF takes around twice as much time to get to a converged solution. But there are quite a few parameters i can still look at. Next one is checking NonOrthogonalCorrectors=1 (thanks for the idea).

Thanks Conn, i ll also give try to your suggestion, sounds interesting.

nico765 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2008, 14:01
Default You don't NEED any nonOrthogon
Senior Member
Eugene de Villiers
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Rep Power: 14
eugene is on a distinguished road
You don't NEED any nonOrthogonal correctors for a steady state run (unless your mesh is particularly poor). Non-orthogonal correction is done even if there are no additional corrector steps and the solution should be identical at convergence.
eugene is offline   Reply With Quote


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
Benchmarking solvers in OpenFOAM srinath OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 4 January 13, 2009 04:22
Benchmarking for Marangoni flow yfyap Main CFD Forum 0 March 7, 2006 23:12
turbulence benchmarking/validation Steve FLUENT 3 February 26, 2002 20:57
Exact 2D NS solution for benchmarking? Tony Main CFD Forum 4 July 31, 2001 14:50
Heat Transfer Benchmarking Joakim Brink Main CFD Forum 1 February 8, 1999 14:33

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35.