<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Barry: On its way. Could take a couple days again.<br>
<br>
Junchao: I unfortunately don't have access to a cluster with a
faster network. This one has a mixed 4X QDR-FDR InfiniBand 2:1
blocking fat-tree network, which I realize causes parallel slowdown
if the nodes are not connected to the same switch. Each node has 24
processors (2x12/socket) and four NUMA domains (two for each
socket).<br>
The ranks are usually not distributed perfectly even, i.e. for 125
processes, of the six required nodes, five would use 21 cores and
one 20.<br>
Would using another CPU type make a difference communication-wise? I
could switch to faster ones (on the same network), but I always
assumed this would only improve performance of the stuff that is
unrelated to communication.<br>
<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>The log files have something like "Average time for zero
size MPI_Send(): 1.84231e-05". It looks you ran on a cluster
with a very slow network. A typical machine should give less
than 1/10 of the latency you have. An easy way to try is
just running the code on a machine with a faster network and
see what happens.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>Also, how many cores & numa domains does a compute
node have? I could not figure out how you distributed the
125 MPI ranks evenly.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">--Junchao Zhang</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:18 AM,
Michael Becker <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:Michael.Becker@physik.uni-giessen.de"
target="_blank">Michael.Becker@physik.uni-giessen.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hello again,</p>
<p>here are the updated log_view files for 125 and 1000
processors. I ran both problems twice, the first time
with all processors per node allocated ("-1.txt"), the
second with only half on twice the number of nodes
("-2.txt").<br>
</p>
<span class=""> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On May 24, 2018, at 12:24 AM, Michael Becker <a class="m_541343124460185301moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Michael.Becker@physik.uni-giessen.de" target="_blank"><Michael.Becker@physik.uni-<wbr>giessen.de></a> wrote:
I noticed that for every individual KSP iteration, six vector objects are created and destroyed (with CG, more with e.g. GMRES).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> Hmm, it is certainly not intended at vectors be created and destroyed within each KSPSolve() could you please point us to the code that makes you think they are being created and destroyed? We create all the work vectors at KSPSetUp() and destroy them in KSPReset() not during the solve. Not that this would be a measurable distance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> I mean this, right in the log_view output:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="-1">Memory usage is
given in bytes:<br>
</font> <font size="-1"><br>
Object Type Creations Destructions Memory
Descendants' Mem.<br>
Reports information only for process 0.<br>
</font> <font size="-1"><br>
--- Event Stage 0: Main Stage<br>
</font> <font size="-1"><br>
...<br>
</font> <font size="-1"><br>
--- Event Stage 1: First Solve<br>
</font> <font size="-1"><br>
...<br>
</font> <font size="-1"><br>
--- Event Stage 2: Remaining Solves<br>
</font> <font size="-1"><br>
Vector 23904 23904 1295501184 0. </font></blockquote>
I logged the exact number of KSP iterations over the 999
timesteps and its exactly 23904/6 = 3984. <span
class="">
<p>Michael<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_541343124460185301moz-cite-prefix">Am
24.05.2018 um 19:50 schrieb Smith, Barry F.:<br>
</div>
</span>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> Please send the log file for 1000 with cg as the solver.
You should make a bar chart of each event for the two cases to see which ones are taking more time and which are taking less (we cannot tell with the two logs you sent us since they are for different solvers.)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On May 24, 2018, at 12:24 AM, Michael Becker <a class="m_541343124460185301moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Michael.Becker@physik.uni-giessen.de" target="_blank"><Michael.Becker@physik.uni-<wbr>giessen.de></a> wrote:
I noticed that for every individual KSP iteration, six vector objects are created and destroyed (with CG, more with e.g. GMRES).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> Hmm, it is certainly not intended at vectors be created and destroyed within each KSPSolve() could you please point us to the code that makes you think they are being created and destroyed? We create all the work vectors at KSPSetUp() and destroy them in KSPReset() not during the solve. Not that this would be a measurable distance.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>This seems kind of wasteful, is this supposed to be like this? Is this even the reason for my problems? Apart from that, everything seems quite normal to me (but I'm not the expert here).
Thanks in advance.
Michael
<log_view_125procs.txt><log_<wbr>view_1000procs.txt>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>