[HPGMG Forum] HPGMG release v0.1
mfadams at lbl.gov
Mon Jun 9 11:30:09 UTC 2014
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Absolutely right and I noted in my first email, the problem is people
> cannot stop themselves from doing the comparison even when they know that
> it is wrong.
Probably but this might be a benign exercise, like debugging code that you
see in a presentation, at least for people that understand that sockets
have different costs.
> An extreme response might be to normalize the curves from each machine so
> that they all start at the same point and then the only visible information
> would be the scaling for each machine, not that one curve is consistently
> above another curve (because of fatter nodes or whatever). Hmm, maybe that
> is not a bad idea?
This would make it easier to distinguish data/trends that log-log smothers.
The "socket" data is useful in that it is "raw" data and difference in
performance of a socket is useful, even if not complete without some sort
of cost. The plasma PIC codes that I work with, for instance, generate
plots like this (sockets). I could compare and see how much faster IVB is
than BG/Q nodes on these PIC codes and HPGMG. This ratio (Cray/IBM)_PIC /
(Cray/IBM)_HPGMG might be interesting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HPGMG-Forum