On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 11:12 -0800, Francesco Pietra wrote: > Why 4 processors? Moreover, with such a system is that > command optimized or should MPI used instead? In other > words, is my arrangement "shared memory" or should be > considered a cluster?
4 processors because 2 x 2 = 4 > That because someone has recently warned me that > "dual-opteron is not shared memory [I knew that of > course]. Each cpu has its own memory, and they can > access each other's. If your program uses MPI then > that's the best way of having it." Dual Opteron is definitely shared memory in the modern sense of the term - it's actually NUMA, which means each processor has its own supply of memory but can request memory from other processors (whereas with 'traditional' SMP, there's one big pool of memory and one pool of processors). Massive 'SMP' systems such as SGI's Itanium-powered Altix are NUMA. Performance, however, is a bigger question. Is there a hit when accessing a different processor's memory? Yes. Would MPI be faster? Possibly, but probably not on a 2x2 machine. Opteron suffers from diminishing returns (especially with a 2.6 kernel), so adding more cores takes you further & further from optimal performance - meaning MPI becomes a more interesting prospect at that point. --Jo Shields -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
