Okay. So, going back to Jeff's second surprise, we have 256 Mbyte/2.5
sec = 100 Mbyte/sec = 1 Gbit/sec (sloppy math). So, without getting
into details of what we're measuring/reporting here, there doesn't on
the face of it appear to be anything wrong with the baseline
performance. Jeff was right that 256K doubles should have been faster,
but 256 Mbyte... seems reasonable. So, the remaining mystery is the 6x or so spike at 128 Mbyte. Dunno. How important is it to resolve that mystery? shan axida wrote:
|
- Re: [OMPI users] SHARED Memory---------------- Elvedin Trnjanin
- Re: [OMPI users] SHARED Memory---------------- Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI users] SHARED Memory---------------- shan axida
- Re: [OMPI users] SHARED Memory--------------... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI users] SHARED Memory----------... shan axida
- Re: [OMPI users] SHARED Memory-----... Eugene Loh
- [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from OpenMPI shan axida
- Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from OpenMPI Jeff Squyres
- Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from OpenMPI shan axida
- Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from OpenMPI shan axida
- Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from Ope... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from... shan axida
- Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Bcast from... shan axida