On Jan 18, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:

with Lustre, which is about 55% of the
theoretical 20 Gb/s advertised speed.

I think this should be calculated against 16 Gbps, not 20 Gbps.

What is the advertised speed of a IB DDR card?

http://mellanox.com/products/hca_cards.php
http://www.voltaire.com/Products/Server_Products/Voltaire_HCA_4X0

The ~900 MB/s (7.2 Gb/s)
mentioned above is, of course, ~72% of advertised speed. If any IB
folks have any better numbers, please correct me.

Using MPI (over a non idle multi-level switch) I get 940 * 10^6 Bytes/s which
is 94% of peak for that IB 4x SDR.

7.5 Gb/s. That card is sold as a 10 Gb/s card. See links above.

The data throughput limit for 8x PCIe is ~12 Gb/s. The theoretical
limit is 16 Gb/s, but each PCIe packet has a whopping 20 byte
overhead. If the adapter uses 64 byte packets, then you see 1/3 of
the throughput go to overhead.

AFAIK the datafield of a pci-express packet is 0-4096 bytes and the header a bit more than 20 bytes (including things such as start/stop frame bytes, LCRC/ECRC..). This gives a maximum speed over 4x PCIe of 993.3 10^6 Bytes/s
(8 Gbps after coding minus header waste for a full 4096 byte payload).

In short, the SDR IB equipment I have seen has easily reached 90%+ while PCI-express on the platforms I've tried has been limited to ~75%. Current IB
DDR HCAs are probably limited by (at least) PCI-express 8x.

/Peter

Not all motherboard/chipsets can do more than 64 bytes. Some can, some cannot. Realistically, most PCIe 4x card are limited to less than 950 MB/s (7.6 Gb/s).

You keep lowering the bar for the users. :-) The consumer buys X and expects to get close to X. They are surprised when you tell them that the "real" rate is Y where Y is 20-40% less than X.

The problem is that cards have two "ends", the host side and the network side. Focusing on one side while ignoring the other is asking for confused/upset customers. Mismatching the fabric and the host connection such as using DDR fabric to 8x PCIe slot limits the traffic to the slower of the two.

Scott

Reply via email to