Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH (v3.1) Performing slow on 10G Ethernet
I am running bandwidth test from OSU-Micro-Benchmarks and a simple Ping-Pong program implemented using MPI Send and Recv methods. I have also tested bandwidth with NetPipe MPI implementation as well but no improvements in results. Interrupt coalescing was ON by default and disabling it makes latency consistent at 37 us through out messages of 1 byte to 2 MB data size. I have done following vendor recommended optimizations for network buffer. Latency is not increasing with the message size may be because of these settings. net.core.rmem_max = 16777216 net.core.wmem_max = 16777216 net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 16777216 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 16777216 net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 250000 I have not run streaming benchmark. I found a Streaming MPI benchmark ( http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/) but its C implementation is not available. Can you please suggest me any Streaming MPI-C benchmark? Latency test with netperf TCP_RR gives 37 us for message size 1 Bytes. Moreover, according to Netperf docs, _RR test support only 1 bytes message size. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Atchley, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 16, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Scott Atchley <[email protected]> wrote:
Keep in mind that iperf is a streaming test. What MPI application are you running? IMB pingpong?
You should review you NIC vendor's tuning FAQ. Is interrupt coalescing turned on? Normally it is, but it increases small message latency.
As for bandwidth, have you tried a streaming MPI benchmark?
Or run Netperf's TCP_RR for each message size to see how it compares to pingpong.
Scott
On Apr 15, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Muhammad Ansar Javed <
[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Antonio, Thanks for response. Here is output of iperf bandwidth test. . Client connecting to 10g2, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 1.41 MByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 5] local 192.168.1.33 port 34543 connected with 192.168.1.34 port
5001
[ 4] local 192.168.1.33 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.34 port 48531 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.2 GBytes 9.61 Gbits/sec [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.2 GBytes 9.59 Gbits/sec
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, "Antonio J. Peña" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ansar,
The bandwidth numbers seem a little low. I'd expect something around 7,000 Mbps. To discard issues with MPI, you can try generic benchmarking tools such as those described here>
http://linuxaria.com/article/tool-command-line-bandwidth-linux?lang=en
If you get similar numbers, you'll have to check your setup. Otherwise, let us know and we'll try to see if there's any performance issue with MPICH.
Best, Antonio
On 04/15/2014 06:35 AM, Muhammad Ansar Javed wrote:
Hi, I am running benchmarks for MPICH v3.1 performance evaluation on 10G Ethernet connection between two hosts. The performance results are less than expected. Here is complete set of numbers for Latency and Bandwidth tests.
mpj@host3:~/code/benchmarks$ mpiexec -n 2 -f machines ./latency.out Latency: MPICH-C Size ______ Time (us) 1 _________ 37.91 2 _________ 37.76 4 _________ 37.75 8 _________ 39.02 16 ________ 52.71 32 ________ 39.08 64 ________ 37.75 128 _______ 37.77 256 _______ 57.47 512 _______ 37.86 1024 ______ 37.76 2048 ______ 37.88
mpj@host3:~/code/benchmarks$ mpiexec -n 2 -f machines ./bandwidth.out Bandwidth: MPICH-C Size(Bytes) Bandwidth (Mbps) 2048 ______ 412.32 4096 ______ 820.06 8192 ______ 827.77 16384 _____ 1644.36 32768 _____ 2207.52 65536 _____ 4368.76 131072 ____ 2942.93 262144 ____ 4281.17 524288 ____ 4773.78 1048576 ___ 5310.85 2097152 ___ 5382.94 4194304 ___ 5518.97 8388608 ___ 5508.87 16777216 __ 5498.93
My environments consists of two hosts having point-to-point (switch-less) 10Gbps Ethernet connection. Environment (OS, user, directory structure etc) on both hosts is exactly same. There is no NAS or shared file system between hosts. I have attached output of script mpiexec -all.
Are these numbers okay? If not then please suggest performance improvement methodology...
Thanks
-- Regards
Ansar Javed HPC Lab SEECS NUST Contact: +92 334 438 9394 Email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected]
To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
-- Antonio J. Peña Postdoctoral Appointee Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 240, Of. 3148 Argonne, IL 60439-4847
[email protected] www.mcs.anl.gov/~apenya
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- Regards
Ansar Javed HPC Lab SEECS NUST Contact: +92 334 438 9394 Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- Regards Ansar Javed HPC Lab SEECS NUST Contact: +92 334 438 9394 Email: [email protected]
participants (1)
-
Muhammad Ansar Javed