I've actually run this experiment (not on a quad-core, but, on a four cpu cluster). I have no reason to believe the quad-core would behave differently than the cluster assuming appropriate software on the quad-core.
N = n cpu's O = observed run-time in minutes for multiple identical runs D = observed decrease in runtime with n cpu's T = theoretical decrease in runtime with n cpu's N O D T 1 159 - 0 2 79 80 80 3 53 106 106 4 40 119 119 The equations for the reduction in processing time were also derived and presented at AAPS in 2003, "Use of a Linux Cluster with PDx-Pop and NONMEM V to Streamline Population Analysis", W. Bachman and W. Knebel. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Chapel Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NMusers] Linear speedup of NONMEM on quad-core CPUs? That's really not my question. My question was about speedup of multiple NONMEM runs, not one NONMEM run. Let me rephrase the question. Let's say I have eight NONMEM jobs to run each week. Each NONMEM job takes eight hours to run. I go to a computer and start one NONMEM job, and when it is finished, I start another, and so on. After eight hours, all eight NONMEM jobs are run. The next week, I get a great idea. Instead of using one computer, I can use eight computers. I start all eight NONMEM jobs at the same time, and after only one hour they are all done. I have achieved eightfold (linear) speedup in running eight jobs by using eight computers. The next week, I make a further realization. The computers I was running the NONMEM jobs are dual-core, so I need to use only four computers. I start two NONMEM jobs on each of the four computers, and after one hour all the jobs are done. The benefit is that this week I needed only four computers to be available. It might occur to me that all I really need is one computer with two quad-core processors. I could start all eight NONMEM jobs simultaneously on just one computer. The question is, has anyone actually tried this? Does it run all eight NONMEM jobs in the same time it would take to run one NONMEM jobs? In other words, has going from one core to eight cores enabled an eightfold (linear) speedup in running eight NONMEM jobs? If not, how much speedup might I expect from an eight-core computer? -- Steve Brian M. Sadler wrote: > Steve, > > I have just set up NONMEM 6 on a 4GB Core(2) Quad system running XP64. I > don't yet have benchmarks, but I have noted activity on all four CPU using > the "/Qparallel" option with the Intel Fortran Compiler. I look forward to > hearing of others' experiences. > > Cheers... Brian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Steve Chapel > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [NMusers] Linear speedup of NONMEM on quad-core CPUs? > > A few years ago there was a post about benchmarking results for NONMEM > on a dual-core CPU (http://huxley.phor.com/nonmem/nm/99nov212005.html). > Given the relatively recent release of Xeon quad-core processors I > wanted to know if anybody has compared NONMEM runs on a machine with two > dual-core processors to NONMEM runs on a quad-core CPU, or even NONMEM > runs on a computer with two quad-core CPUs. Has anyone confirmed that > having four or eight cores provides linear speedup of running four or > eight NONMEM jobs? Alternatively, if anyone has confirmed that the > speedup is not linear, what is the approximate speedup, and what was > model number of the CPU(s)? > > If a similar topic has been discussed recently (in January or February) > on this mailing list, could someone please re-post the information? I > just joined in March 2007, and the archives seem to contain no messages > from 2007. > > Thanks, > Steve > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that ICON can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message. Thank You.
