Big SMP boxes are expensive, and puny two-socket and four-socket boxes are cheap. And for years now, ScaleMP has been trying to use software and fast networks to make a big server out of a bunch of little ones. Managing clusters is a pain in the neck, and applications really like to have a single address space to play in, and …
My experience with ScaleMP is
not very good. I tested software which ran beautifully on a 24 core (6 quad-core) opterons (18-22 x speed-up) crunching through multi-scale analysis of a 1.2 gigapixel image in 60 seconds. On a 64 core (4x 16 cores if I am right) ScaleMP box performance was DISMAL. As more threads are added, the performance tends to drop severely. On a single thread I would get a timing of say 60 seconds for a smallish data set, on 2 threads it took anything up to 5 minutes. The scheduler NEVER puts two threads of the same program on a single board, but scatters them far and wide. You can only gain speed up on these boxes if you have many light-weight processes which do not need to share much memory. Did we not have clusters for that?
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- Vid+Pics Microsoft unwraps WINDOWS 10: Seven ate Nine. Or 8 did, anyway
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9