Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 11:40:40 -0700 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@consys.com> Cc: "Alex Fenyo (eowyn)" <fenyo@email.enst.fr>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Cluster Computing in BSD Message-ID: <337B58A8.2540@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <199705151553.IAA22312@conceptual.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Russell L. Carter wrote: > > computers, but I can live with it :-). (With six boxes, a common > > scientific process could take nearly 1/6 of the time on a fast network). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > The difference between "could" and "does" is the > reason for the failure of (nearly) every business unit that sold > highly parallel/cluster systems. > I already corrected this, it does 4.5 times better, not 6. Anyway measuring this is extremely difficult and any vendor can change the intrinsic variables. It all depends on how big is your process(es) and if the other boxes are busy on other things or not. I would expect better results with SMP (the other processors work on the same thing while on clustering every box can handle it's own process), but in the end the total cost of the hardware is the issue, and if you already have other boxes with spare time, well.. The type of process is also important. Clustering is better for crunching-number process than in massive volume processes. Not much sense in using clustering for a Web server if your internal network isn't VERY fast. Pedro. > Cheers, > Russell > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > Alexandre Fenyo > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?337B58A8.2540>