Hi Alexander,
I think this graph is far too small for serious performance benchmarks,
it only has 1M vertices and 32M edges.
I'd suggest you either create a much larger graph or take a snapshot of
a real one. I personally like to use a snapshot of the twitter follower
graph [1] from 2009 with 50M vertices and 2B edges for experimenting.
Best,
Sebastian
[1] http://konect.uni-koblenz.de/networks/twitter_mpi
On 02/07/2014 05:41 PM, Alexander Frolov 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
