On 7/12/2011 7:45 PM, Mohan, Ashwin wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that the exact same code took 50% more time to run on OpenMPI
than Intel. I use the following syntax to compile and run:
Intel MPI Compiler: (Redhat Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg), Kernel
version: Linux 2.6.9-1.667smp x86_64**
mpiicpc -o xxxx.cpp<filename> -lmpi
OpenMPI 1.4.3: (Centos 5.5 w/ python 2.4.3, Kernel version: Linux
2.6.18-194.el5 x86_64)**
mpiCC xxxx.cpp -o<filename
MPI run command:
mpirun -np 4<filename>
**Other hardware specs**
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 3
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.60GHz
stepping : 4
cpu MHz : 3591.062
cache size : 1024 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 2
core id : 0
cpu cores : 1
apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 5
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr
pge mca cmov pat pse36
clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall lmconstant_tsc
pni monitor ds_cpl est tm2
cid xtpr
bogomips : 7182.12
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 128
address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:
Can the issue of efficiency be deciphered from the above info?
Does the compiler flags have an effect on the efficiency of the
simulation. If so, what flags maybe useful to check to be included for
Open MPI.
The default options for icpc are roughly equivalent to the quite
aggressive choice
g++ -fno-strict-aliasing -ffast-math -fnocx-limited-range -O3
-funroll-loops --param max-unroll-times=2
while you apparently used default -O0 for your mpiCC (if it is g++),
neither of which is a very good initial choice for performance analysis.
So, if you want a sane comparison but aren't willing to study the
compiler manuals, you might use (if your source code doesn't violate the
aliasing rules)
mpiicpc -prec-div -prec-sqrt -ansi-alias
and at least
(if your linux compiler is g++)
mpiCC -O2
possibly with some of the other options I mentioned earlier.
If you have as ancient a g++ as your indication of FC3 implies, it
really isn't fair to compare it with a currently supported compiler.
Then, Intel MPI, by default, would avoid using HyperThreading, even
though you have it enabled on your CPU, so, I suppose, if you are
running on a single core, it will be rotating among your 4 MPI processes
1 at a time. The early Intel HyperThread CPUs typically took 15% longer
to run MPI jobs when running 2 processes per core.
Will including MPICH2 increase efficiency in running simulations using
OpenMPI?
You have to choose a single MPI. Having MPICH2 installed shouldn't
affect performance of OpenMPI or Intel MPI, except to break your
installation if you don't keep things sorted out.
OpenMPI and Intel MPI normally perform very close, if using equivalent
settings, when working within the environments for which both are suited.
--
Tim Prince
