User Tools

Site Tools


hpc:bghep:benchmarks

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
hpc:bghep:benchmarks [2014/05/27 16:33]
edmay
hpc:bghep:benchmarks [2014/05/27 16:45] (current)
edmay
Line 67: Line 67:
 http://www.hep.anl.gov/may/ALCF/new.vesta.4up.pdf Vesta Plots http://www.hep.anl.gov/may/ALCF/new.vesta.4up.pdf Vesta Plots
 Focusing on the 'Efficiency' plots there appears to be some (small) Focusing on the 'Efficiency' plots there appears to be some (small)
-improvements both at low core numbers and a high core numbers+improvements both at low core numbers and a high core numbers: 80% rising to 90% and 20% rising to 40% respectively.
  
 +The large step between 512 to 1024 is still present!
  
 As part of the bootcamp for MIRA the code was moved to the As part of the bootcamp for MIRA the code was moved to the
Line 74: Line 75:
 IO model. The results are shown in  IO model. The results are shown in 
 http://www.hep.anl.gov/may/ALCF/new.mira.4up.pdf Mira figures http://www.hep.anl.gov/may/ALCF/new.mira.4up.pdf Mira figures
 +Again focusing on the Efficiency plot the results are very
 +similar. This suggest when using this naive IO model of each
 +mpi rank writing its own output ProMC file should be limited to
 +jobs of 512 cores or less for good utilization of the machine
 +and IO resouces. This is OK for Vesta where the minimum charging
 +is 32 nodes (ie 512 cores). While on Mira the minimum is 512 
 +nodes (ie 8192 cores) there is not a good match!
  
 [[hpc:bghep:| << back]] [[hpc:bghep:| << back]]
hpc/bghep/benchmarks.1401208405.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/05/27 16:33 by edmay