>
>
> Interesting, surely the order is almost logarithmic. But how long it
> takes a packet to pass through a layer. I'm afraid the actual delay
> time may increase.
>
With gigabit ethernet my humble opinion is that you should have no problem.
But, testing what happens if you "artificially" canc
Olivier Teytaud: :
>> Even if the sum-up is done in a logarithmic time (with binary tree
>> style), the collecting time of all infomation from all nodes is
>> proportional to the number of nodes if the master node has few
>> communication ports, isn't it?
>>
>
>No (unless I misunderstood what you m
> Even if the sum-up is done in a logarithmic time (with binary tree
> style), the collecting time of all infomation from all nodes is
> proportional to the number of nodes if the master node has few
> communication ports, isn't it?
>
No (unless I misunderstood what you mean, sorry in that case!)
Olivier Teytaud: :
>> In your (or Sylvain's?) recent paper, you wrote less than one second
>> interval was useless. I've observed similar. I'm now evaluating the
>> performance with 0.2, 0.4, 1 and 4 second intervals for 5 second per
>> move setting on 19x19 board on 32 nodes of HA8000 cluster.
>
> In your (or Sylvain's?) recent paper, you wrote less than one second
> interval was useless. I've observed similar. I'm now evaluating the
> performance with 0.2, 0.4, 1 and 4 second intervals for 5 second per
> move setting on 19x19 board on 32 nodes of HA8000 cluster.
>
Yes, one second is fi
Thank you Oliver,
Olivier Teytaud: :
>>
>> The performance gap is perhaps due to the algorithms. Almost all
>> cluster versions of current strong programs (MoGo, MFG, Fuego and Zen)
>> use root parallel while shared memory computers allow us to use thread
>> parallelism, which gives better perfor
>
> The performance gap is perhaps due to the algorithms. Almost all
> cluster versions of current strong programs (MoGo, MFG, Fuego and Zen)
> use root parallel while shared memory computers allow us to use thread
> parallelism, which gives better performance.
I think you should not have troubl
Darren Cook: <4b0c6706.7070...@dcook.org>:
>> Also, on 19x19 board, current 16-core cluster version performs almost
>> the same as 8-core shared memory pc such as Mac Pro, which Yamato used
>> for KGS.
>
>Hi Hideki,
>Is that difference due to a scaling limit of Zen, or is this due to the
>cluste
> Also, on 19x19 board, current 16-core cluster version performs almost
> the same as 8-core shared memory pc such as Mac Pro, which Yamato used
> for KGS.
Hi Hideki,
Is that difference due to a scaling limit of Zen, or is this due to the
cluster overhead? Would moving from gigabit to infiniband
Hi Nick,
I'll perticipate comming tournaments as much as possible but it's
still under development and needs much more work and time for full
performance.
Since my mini cluster uses usual Gigabit Ether, which is much slower
than expensive Infiniband or such high speed network devices, it
performs
In message <4b0c4522.370%hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp>, Hideki Kato
writes
Ingo Althöfer: <20091124200643.255...@gmx.net>:
Hideki replied:
Do I have a Christmas wish for free already?
It is: Let the cluster also run on KGS - against the humans.
I'd like to do so but it's not allowed to connect
11 matches
Mail list logo
