This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:05 -0700, Ron Brightwell wrote:
> > [...]
> > >From an adoption perspective, though, the ability to shine in
> > micro-benchmarks is important, even if it means using an ad-hoc tuning.
> > There is some justification for it after all. There are small clusters
> > out there (many more than big ones, in fact) so taking maximum advantage
> > of a small scale is relevant.
> I'm obliged to point out that you jumped to a conclusion -- possibly true
> in some cases, but not always.
> You assumed that a performance increase for a two-node micro-benchmark
> would result in an application performance increase for a small cluster.
> Using RDMA for short messages is the default on small clusters *because*
> of the two-node micro-benchmark, not because the cluster is small.
No, I assumed it based on comparisions between doing and not doing small
msg rdma at various scales, from a paper Galen pointed out to me.
Benchmarks are what they are. In the above paper, the tests place the
cross-over at around 64 nodes and that confirms a number of anecdotal
reports I got. It may well be that in some situations, small-msg rdma is
better only for 2 nodes, but that's note such a likely scenario; reality
is sometimes linear (at least at our scale :-) ) after all.
The scale threshold could be tunable, couldnt it ?
Jean-Christophe Hugly <jice_at_[hidden]>