Ray and all others,
I just double-checked with Tim and our nodelist, etc. We did run on 16
nodes with 192 CCDs, which means 192/32 = 6 cores / CCD, which is twice
what we meant to do. This would explain why the runtimes looked longer
than I remembered. It actually means that (since we have perfect
parallelism at this level, really) we can expect 65-70 sec per image.
-Jon
Ray Plante wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, jmyers wrote:
As it stands, I'm a little bit confused right now - Tim says we
should have 3 stageslices/CPU core. With 32 hosts x 2 cores x 3
slices, that should be 192 stageslices. This much looks good:
Actually is 16 hosts x 2 processors, so yes 6 slices per processor.
(Hmm, I guess if you were thinking 3 slices per processor, then we
should have done even better.)
cheers,
Ray
_______________________________________________
LSST-data mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
_______________________________________________
LSST-data mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
