It's expected on the Xeon Westmere 6-core CPUs to see MPI performance saturating when all 4 of the internal buss paths are in use. For this reason, hybrid MPI/OpenMP with 2 cores per MPI rank, with affinity set so that each MPI rank has its own internal CPU buss, could out-perform plain MPI on those CPUs.
On 1/29/2014 8:02 AM, Reuti wrote:
Quoting Victor <email@example.com>:
Thanks for the reply Reuti,
There are two machines: Node1 with 12 physical cores (dual 6 core Xeon) and
Do you have this CPU?
That scheme of pairing cores on selected internal buss paths hasn't been repeated. Some influential customers learned to prefer the 4-core version of that CPU, given a reluctance to adopt MPI/OpenMP hybrid with affinity.
If you want to talk about "downright strange," start thinking about the schemes to optimize performance of 8 threads with 2 threads assigned to each internal CPU buss on that CPU model. Or your scheme of trying to balance MPI performance between very different CPU models.
Node2 with 4 physical cores (i5-2400).
Regarding scaling on the single 12 core node, not it is also not linear. In
fact it is downright strange. I do not remember the numbers right now but
10 jobs are faster than 11 and 12 are the fastest with peak performance of
approximately 66 Msu/s which is also far from triple the 4 core
performance. This odd non-linear behaviour also happens at the lower job
counts on that 12 core node. I understand the decrease in scaling with
increase in core count on the single node as the memory bandwidth is an
On the 4 core machine the scaling is progressive, ie. every additional job
brings an increase in performance. Single core delivers 8.1 Msu/s while 4
cores deliver 30.8 Msu/s. This is almost linear.
Since my original email I have also installed Open-MX and recompiled
OpenMPI to use it. This has resulted in approximately 10% better
performance using the existing GbE hardware.
On 29 January 2014 19:40, Reuti <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Am 29.01.2014 um 03:00 schrieb Victor:
> I am running a CFD simulation benchmark cavity3d available within
> It is a parallel friendly Lattice Botlzmann solver library.
> Palabos provides benchmark results for the cavity3d on several different
platforms and variables here:
> The problem that I have is that the benchmark performance on my cluster
does not scale even close to a linear scale.
> My cluster configuration:
> Node1: Dual Xeon 5560 48 Gb RAM
> Node2: i5-2400 24 Gb RAM
> Gigabit ethernet connection on eth0
> OpenMPI 1.6.5 on Ubuntu 12.04.3
> Node1 -slots=4 -max-slots=4
> Node2 -slots=4 -max-slots=4
> MPI command: mpirun --mca btl_tcp_if_include eth0 --hostfile
/home/mpiuser/.mpi_hostfile -np 8 ./cavity3d 400
> cavity3d 400
> When I run mpirun -np 4 on Node1 I get 35.7615 Mega site updates per
> When I run mpirun -np 4 on Node2 I get 30.7972 Mega site updates per
> When I run mpirun --mca btl_tcp_if_include eth0 --hostfile
/home/mpiuser/.mpi_hostfile -np 8 ./cavity3d 400 I get 47.3538 Mega site
updates per second
> I understand that there are latencies with GbE and that there is MPI
overhead, but this performance scaling still seems very poor. Are my
expectations of scaling naive, or is there actually something wrong and
fixable that will improve the scaling? Optimistically I would like each
node to add to the cluster performance, not slow it down.
> Things get even worse if I run asymmetric number of mpi jobs in each
node. For instance running -np 12 on Node1
Isn't this overloading the machine with only 8 real cores in total?
> is significantly faster than running -np 16 across Node1 and Node2, thus
adding Node2 actually slows down the performance.
The i5-2400 has only 4 cores and no threads.
It depends on the algorithm how much data has to be exchanged between the
processes, and this can indeed be worse when used across a network.
Also: is the algorithm scaling linear when used on node1 only with 8
cores? When it's "35.7615 " with 4 cores, what result do you get with 8
cores on this machine.
users mailing list
users mailing list
users mailing list