Gleb,Here are my findings with TCP and MX. In fact for TCP results on heterogeneous networks we should wait one or two days (still upgrading my cluster). But I go some very interesting results for MX.
Thanks to Myricom guys for the access to their resources. I was able to run Open MPI on a cluster with 2 Myricom interfaces, a 10Gbs and a 2Gbs. The green and violet lines are for the 2Gbs respectively for the 10Gbs interfaces. The blue line is for the current version, as in a fresh check-out. As you can see the bandwidth is getting a little bit higher than the 10g, but still far from what it should be (in numbers we get 9.3Gbs over the 10g, 1.9 over the 2g and 10Gb over both of them). Then I start applying the patches. First, the Gleb original patch, the one without the dynamic scheduling. This is the red line. There seems to be no apparent difference between the trunk and the version with this patch (there is barely few Mbs more with the patch when I look at the numbers). Then I went on and added the second patch, the one adding the dynamic routing. And there we got some interesting results, i.e. the yellow line. We are at about 98% of the theoretical bandwidth (i.e. the sum of the max over each interfaces). Which is pretty good.
I think Gleb's second patch is the right way to go. Feel free to commit as soon as you want.
Thanks,
george.
mx-10g-2g-gleb-patch.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
On Jun 28, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:02:14PM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:No problem. I also will be glad if you'll be able to test with multipleI'm not against the patch (at least not against your second version). I really want to have the dynamic way to feed the BTLs based on the order in which they complete the previous send. Give me one or two days, I want to test your patch on a heterogeneous Ethernet environment, and right now my cluster is enjoying an upgrade.Myricom networks and mixed Myricom/ethernet environment.Thanks, george. On Jun 28, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:Nobody except George haven't commented/complained about this patch, so Iassume everybody except George are OK with it. And from George mails Idon't understand if he is OK with me applying it to the trunk and he simplythinks that further work should be done in this area. So I'll ask himdirectly: George are you OK with me putting the patch into the trunk? ;) -- Gleb. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel_______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel-- Gleb. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
