Eugen Leitl Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:18:14 -0700
Do any of you here use MPI, and assume 10^3..10^5 node parallelism?
I assume 2^14 node parallelism with only a small fraction computing at
any time. But then my nodes are really smart memory rather than
full-blown processors and not async yet. At
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 08:39:15PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
My 32-bit code has built-in support for 10^3 parallelism, and the 64-bit
code gets essentially bottomless parallelism for free (unused bits and
all that). However, as a practical matter I have not used it yet. You
can buy
Eugen wrote:
Unfortunately, shared memory is an expensive mirage
to maintain. It doesn't scale very well, due to
coherency issuess (if you have r/w intensive operations
on a memory block, you have to send lots of signals to
and fro until you know it's consistent). This takes lots
of time and
Eugen wrote:
Do any of you here use MPI, and assume 10^3..10^5 node parallelism?
My 32-bit code has built-in support for 10^3 parallelism, and the 64-bit
code gets essentially bottomless parallelism for free (unused bits and
all that). However, as a practical matter I have not used it yet.
Today I came across a new graph from the people who keep the list of the
top 500 super computers in the world. It shows, over the period 1993 to
present, the power of the most powerful computer, the computer ranked 500th,
and the sum of all 500 top supercomputers on their list.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 09:01:58PM +1200, Shane wrote:
I'm sure this continued exponential growth is good news for all you power
hungry AGI engineers out there...
Do any of you here use MPI, and assume 10^3..10^5 node parallelism?
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a
