Subject: Include NAS parallel CG benchmark and limit number of benchmarks

From: [email-masked] (David Mackay)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 18:15:11 EST

We are in favor of the proposal to include the NAS Parallel Benchmark
CG-kernel in the Parkbench suite.  I know in the Parkbench meetings
we had discussed includeing a CG test.  

Up until now Parkbench has been concentrating on collecting parallel benchmarks.
We feel that now is the time to consider the size and number of benchmarks we 
include in Parkbench.  We suggest we should begin to limit the number of
kernels now.  So we propose the inclusion of the NAS Parallel
Benchmark CG-kernel be in substitution for the NAS Parallel Benchmark
Is-kernel

-David Mackay
 Ed Kusnher

---

From: Vladimir Getov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 19:57:11 GMT

> we had discussed including a CG test.  
> 
> Up until now Parkbench has been concentrating on collecting parallel 
> benchmarks. We feel that now is the time to consider the size and number of 
> benchmarks we include in Parkbench.  We suggest we should begin to limit the 
> number of kernels now.  So we propose the inclusion of the NAS Parallel
> Is-kernel.
>  Ed Kushner
Thank you for supporting the inclusion of the CG-kernel in the Parkbench
suite. There is no doubt that it is a useful test and should be there.

We are not certain, however, that the IS-kernel has to be dropped out
instead. The current Parkbench report says that
"Although sorting has traditionally been thought of as of importance
primarily in non-scientific computing, this operation is increasingly
important in advanced scientific applications.  In particle method
fluid simulations, for example, sorting is the dominant cost."

Can you give a justification of your proposal. In our opinion, the
decision re: IS-kernel should be taken at the next Parkbench meeting.

Tony Hey and Vladimir Getov