Next: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Up: Parallel Monte Carlo Eigenvalue
Previous: Results
The values of s for the IBM-SP2 computer was calculated from equation
(5.22) where is the actual wall clock timing on N processors. In
tables
5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13 we show the s corresponding to results of
tables 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 respectively.
Table:
IBM-SP2 s for 8000p/b, 100 batch case.
1|c|# of processors |
1|c| Source Iteration |
1|c| Fission Matrix |
1c| Correlated Sampling |
2 |
29.2 |
6.58 |
15.0 |
4 |
10.0 |
11.4 |
26.4 |
8 |
12.5 |
15.1 |
30.8 |
10 |
13.7 |
20.9 |
27.9 |
Table:
IBM-SP2 s for 16000p/b, 100 batch case.
1|c|# of processors |
1|c| Source Iteration |
1|c| Fission Matrix |
1c| Correlated Sampling |
2 |
11.4 |
14.4 |
62.8 |
4 |
17.3 |
13.0 |
16.3 |
8 |
15.7 |
18.7 |
33.9 |
10 |
24.6 |
18.3 |
45.0 |
Table:
IBM-SP2 s for 16000p/b, 50 batch case.
1|c|# of processors |
1|c| Source Iteration |
1|c| Fission Matrix |
1c| Correlated Sampling |
2 |
4.4 |
18.3 |
13.1 |
4 |
6.9 |
9.9 |
9.3 |
8 |
7.7 |
6.1 |
11.9 |
10 |
8.4 |
8.6 |
17.1 |
Table:
IBM-SP2 s for 32000p/b, 50 batch case.
1|c|# of processors |
1|c| Source Iteration |
1|c| Fission Matrix |
1c| Correlated Sampling |
2 |
6.4 |
6.5 |
22.8 |
4 |
9.6 |
14.4 |
20.3 |
8 |
12.9 |
8.4 |
25.7 |
10 |
10.6 |
11.0 |
17.5 |
Even though it is difficult to predict an
empirical formula that exactly determines
s, we notice that for most of the cases is about a
constant. If is assumed to be a constant then is
proportional to . Hence speedup models for IBM-SP2 can be
predicted reasonably well with two parameters, the serial time constant a and the
proportionality constant for .
Next: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Up: Parallel Monte Carlo Eigenvalue
Previous: Results
Amitava Majumdar
9/20/1999