|
[Sponsors] | |||||
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Kārlis Repsons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Latvia
Posts: 111
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 21 ![]() |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Kārlis Repsons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Latvia
Posts: 111
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 21 ![]() |
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... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Kārlis Repsons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Latvia
Posts: 111
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 703
Rep Power: 22 ![]() |
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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |