Which MPI implementation for MPI-2? ...

Joachim Worringen joachim at ccrl-nece.de
Fri Apr 4 03:01:55 EST 2003

Anthony Skjellum:
> Our experience in ChaMPIon/Pro is that we get higher latency and higher
> bandwidth than 2-sided, vs. the design target of lower latency and lower
> bandwidth; the standard missed the mark, but it is still useful.

I would be surprised if the (primary) design target for one-sided 
communication on non-shared-memory architectures was lower latency and higher 
bandwidth - this can obviously not be achieved if you need to use messages. 
I'd say it's the different communication paradigm ("origin process chooses 
which data to read or write, independant from target process") which helps to 
adopt certain communication patterns more easily/naturally, and *maybe* avoid 
some synchronization delays. 

But then again, MPI-2 one sided with it's higly relaxed consistency model does 
not come really naturally for most users...


Joachim Worringen - NEC C&C research lab St.Augustin
fon +49-2241-9252.20 - fax .99 - http://www.ccrl-nece.de

Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

More information about the Beowulf mailing list