Subject: Re: t3d resutls

From: Kenneth R Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 16:22:53 -0600

> Ken,
> 	Unfortunately, it appears that the T3D would pose great problems
> for PARKBENCH utilizing PVM3.3.8.  Hopefully, when the MPI codes are
> released, we'll be able to get a much easier view.  It turns out that
> NAS is producing their own vanilla MPI benchmark versions that we will
> be including within PARKBENCH--this is very fortunate.

So ParkBench is not suitable for the T3D (nor the T3E when it comes
out).  Will the MPI version really address the T3D porting issues we
have uncovered?  I don't think so unless there is a specific effort.
Does anyone else other than me see that not supporting the T3D (a major
MPP) is a major short coming of ParkBench?

> 	The CG and FT PVM codes are being modified by the authors as
> we speak.  There was a distinctly unparallel memory requirement in these
> codes.  But, they have been cleaned up considerably.

Yes, I have seen the new versions.

> 	I am really writing regarding another situation.  Awhile back,
> I sent a request to see if you would run the codes on the LANL CM5.
> Have you had any success?  I ran all the codes here on ours, but it
> only has 32 nodes--so, I could only run the small codes.
> 	If you have not, could you download the most recent version
> of PARKBENCH and run the LINALG kernels only (as the NAS ones are
> being fixed)?  A CM5 make.def already exists with the package, and any
> questions you have can be answered by me.  We'd really like to have
> the numbers to put in the database.  I promise that the concerns
> you noted with the T3D do not appear anywhere else.  It should be easy
> to run without modification.
> 
> Thank you,
> Michael Kolatis
> 

Where can I get the most recent ParkBench codes available these days? 
	http://www.netlib.org/parkbench
	ftp ???
I just grabbed the http://www.netlib.org/parkbench/kernels/kernels.tar.gz
file.  Much nicer file tree and build system.  But ...

I have a major problem with the CM5 configuration: ParkBench uses the
Sparc f77 compiler rather than the TMC cmf compiler.  This means NO
vector units; this is equivalent to castrating our CM5!  What good are
ParkBench CM5 results since any real code will use the vector units?

ParkBench results for a non-vector-unit CM5 and none for the T3D
definitely make ParkBench less appealing.  I just scanned what is
available in the Netlib GBIS ParkBench database for Cray, IBM, Intel,
Meiko, & TMC.  Only the NAS kernels (and compact apps) have data, the
LINALG kernels have none.  And all of the NAS results are all from
vendor implementations of the NAS kernels offically published in the
10/94 and 3/95 NAS reports.  None are from ParkBench PVM
implementations and I expect vendors to continue their own NAS
results.  So why are ParkBench PVM (or MPI) results of interest to the
HPC community?  Comments anyone?

--Ken Koch, CIC-19, LANL