I forgot to note that in time scale it is only included time of computation (e.i. sum of superstep times).
Yes, this is not a big graph, I will come up with larger graphs soon. Best, Alex On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Frolov <[email protected]>wrote: > Undirected RMAT graph, generated by tool extracted from Graph500. Size is > 2^20 vertices, average degree is 32. > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Claudio Martella < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> looks like a very small graph. what's the size of the graph and the >> topology? >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Alexander Frolov < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, team! >>> >>> As I have read in previous threads, I've started evaluation of Giraph on >>> IB-cluster. So here I want to share my results (in case it will be useful >>> for anybody) and ask for your ideas of further improving of performance >>> characteristics. >>> >>> Test system: >>> * 8 Nodes, with dual Intel Xeon CPU E5-2630 (6 cores/CPU), 80GB >>> * Infiniband FDR Dual-Port 4x >>> * SUSE 11.2 >>> * jdk1.7.0_51 >>> >>> At the moment I am performing experiment with >>> SimpleShortestPathsComputation test on generated RMAT graph. I attach plot >>> wich shows scalability of Giraph up to 32 workers. >>> >>> As can be seen from the plot up to 8 workers there is almost linear >>> scalability and then (from 8 to 32) speed is not going up. For me it seems >>> strange that using additional cores on nodes wont bring any performance >>> gain to the execution time. Have anybody meet with such behaviour? >>> >>> Next I am going to use threads instead of workers for cores utilization. >>> Also I am going to switch to the Hadoop-RDMA project. >>> >>> >>> If anybody has any suggestion how I can achieve maximum performance on >>> Giraph on the cluster, I will be obliged to you ;-) >>> >>> Hope for your feedback. >>> >>> Best, >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Claudio Martella >> >> > >
