Ok. Let's go with 64MB. Is that already on the v1.3 branch?
George -- any opinions?
On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > I [unfortunately] think that our benchmark performance is
> > :-(
> > So I don't know if 64mb is too big, but it should probably be above
> > zero to avoid the performance degregation.
> I don't know if 64 MB is too big. I think there is no right answer...
> and you can always find situations for which your answer is the wrong
> answer. I chose 64 MB because it's what everyone had lived with
> (per_peer_size=32MB with a minimum of np=2 giving 2*32MB). So, at
> we mmap as much memory as before but need less of it. At large np, we
> mmap enough memory (jobs will start). With any luck, we're ahead of
> where we used to be.
> devel mailing list