[mvapich-discuss] (no subject)

[Mingzhe Li]

Hi Nenad,

Thanks for the note. We are not able to reproduce this issue on our
systems. Both 2.1 and 2.2b give similar performance with your benchmarks. The
2.2b performance degradation issue might be coming due to ptmalloc issue
you had indicated in a previous posting on your system. If you build 2.1
and 2.2b on the same system and run your benchmark, do you see the
performance difference?

Thanks,
Mingzhe

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Nenad Vukicevic <nenad at intrepid.com> wrote:

> I am attaching a benchmark that shows one-sided Put/Get operations
> being almost 100 times slower from the previous release.  Both version
> are compiled the same way with -enable-fast=O3, however the same can
> be shown for the debugged version.  Note that measurements of
> accumulate operations are compatible across these two versions.
>
> From the attached results you can see that version 2.1 executes 1.4
> million operations per second, while 2.2b does only close to 30
> thousand operations.
>
> Any idea what might be the cause?
>
> Here are the outputs of the runs:
>
> RUNNING 2.1
> nranks = 4
> Main table size = 2^18 = 262144 words
> Number of updates = 1048576
> init(c= 0.0000 w= 0.0000) up(c= 0.7229 w= 0.7300) mil. up/sec= 1.4364
> Found 6469 errors in 262144 locations (passed).
>
> RUNNING 2.2b
> nranks = 4
> Main table size = 2^18 = 262144 words
> Number of updates = 1048576
> init(c= 0.0000 w= 0.0000) up(c= 15.6167 w= 35.1200) mil. up/sec= 0.0299
> Found 6478 errors in 262144 locations (passed).
>
> --
> Nenad
>
> _______________________________________________
> mvapich-discuss mailing list
> mvapich-discuss at cse.ohio-state.edu
> http://mailman.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/mvapich-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cse.ohio-state.edu/pipermail/mvapich-discuss/attachments/20160305/ea214c2c/attachment.html>