[Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Michael Will mwill at penguincomputing.comFri Dec 7 14:16:54 PST 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Distributed objects... Corba... Soap... This all precedes multiple cores per server and essentially is message passing in the enterprise. Michael Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Toon Knapen [mailto:toon.knapen at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 01:31 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Greg Lindahl Cc: beowulf at beowulf.org Subject: Re: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI Greg Lindahl wrote: > > In real life (i.e. not HPC), everyone uses message passing between > nodes. So I don't see what you're getting at. > Many on this list suggest that using multiple MPI-processes on one and the same node is superior to MT approaches IIUC. However I have the impression that almost the whole industry is looking into MT to benefit from multi-core without even considering message-passing. Why is that so? toon _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.scyld.com/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20071207/e712f18f/attachment.html
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
