High Performance Computing

The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

ScaleMP scales up to 128 nodes

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 …

This topic is closed for new posts.
Boffin

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?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Forgotten password

Blogs and Opinion

ARMARM+GPU = dream super?

SC11 NVIDIA: 'Yup, we're on it'

Dan Olds

NvidiaNvidia's Maximus: Hard-core 3D graphics on speed

Blog Quadro-Tesla mashup for animation acceleration

Dan Olds