Robert Duke wrote:
> Yong -
> Don't fret about the ntwx 250; it is a matter of history, and as we move
> forward we can change it to look more competitive. I have kept the
> values so far in the factor ix benchmark for backward compatibility with
> older results. Also, by cranking the write frequency up, I actually am
> actively looking to push the disk i/o a bit harder to see where it will
> be a bottleneck (so if I can get away with ntwx 250 at 300 processors,
> then I should be able to get away with ntwx 1000 on 1200 processors). I
> do feel that it is really only a fair benchmark if you DO write a
> trajectory though, as most folks want at least a trajectory. If we
> handle our file i/o efficiently, then we can end up having a competitive
> advantage here (so the guys competing against us need to write
> trajectories too).
> Regards - Bob
>
I agree with Bob, BUT (big one also) the 'guys competing against us'
might not be writing as often, and it is unlikely we can convince them
to run fair benchmarks.
So, it would be cool if you could rerun the benchmarks writing every 500
or 1000 steps and tell us what they look like, so we can show off your
stuff !
--
Dr. Adrian E. Roitberg
Associate Professor
Quantum Theory Project and Department of Chemistry
University of Florida PHONE 352 392-6972
P.O. Box 118435 FAX 352 392-8722
Gainesville, FL 32611-8435 Email adrian.qtp.ufl.edu
============================================================================
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Received on Sun Mar 04 2007 - 06:07:26 PST
