I added a second benchmark, using a Thornburg04 patch system, 8th order finite differencing, and 4th order patch interpolation. The results are
original: 8.53935e-06 sec rewrite: 8.55188e-06 sec this time with 1 thread per MPI process, since that was most efficient in both cases. Most of the time is spent in inter-patch interpolation, which is much more expensive than in a "regular" case since this benchmark is run on a single node and hence with very small grids. With these numbers under our belt, can we merge the rewrite branch? -erik On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Ian Hinder <[email protected]> wrote: > hi Erik, > > You could try the ones at > > > https://bitbucket.org/ianhinder/cactusbench/src/faea4e13ed4232968e81edd1bbc80519198fe2b2/examples/ML_BSSN_Test/benchmark/?at=master > > I haven't updated them in a while, but hopefully the ET is sufficiently > backward compatible for them to still work. > > -- > Ian Hinder > http://members.aei.mpg.de/ianhin > > On 4 Jul 2015, at 17:04, Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ian Hinder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 3 Jul 2015, at 22:38, Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I ran the Simfactory benchmark for ML_BSSN on both the current version >> and the "rewrite" branch to see whether this branch is ready for production >> use. I ran this benchmark on a single node of Shelob at LSU. In both cases, >> using 2 OpenMP threads and 8 MPI processes per node was fastest, so I am >> reporting these results below. Since I was interested in the performance of >> McLachlan, this is a unigrid vacuum benchmark using fourth order >> differencing. >> >> One noteworthy difference is that dissipation as implemented in the >> "rewrite" branch is finally approximately as fast as thorn Dissipation, and >> I have thus used this option for the "rewrite" branch. >> >> Here are the high-level results: >> >> current: 3.03136e-06 sec per grid point >> rewrite: 2.85734e-06 sec per grid point >> >> That is, the rewrite branch is about 5% faster. >> >> >> Hi Erik, >> >> That is very reassuring! However, for production use, I would be more >> interested in 6th or 8th order finite differencing (where the advection >> stencils become very large), and with Jacobians. If 8th order with >> Jacobians is at least a similar speed with the rewrite branch, then I would >> be happy with switching. >> > > Ian > > Do you want to suggest a particular benchmark parameter file? > > -erik > > -- > Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/ > > -- Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
