Benchmark results BSPonMPI 0.2 and a comparison
Currenlty the two leading BSPlib implementations are PUB and the Oxford BSP Toolset. The purpose and functionality of BSPonMPI differs from PUB or Oxford, just as PUB and Oxford differ. Therefore you should choose your BSPlib which fits your needs best. To get a feeling which implementation that would be, I ran some benchmarks.
The benchmark program is heavily inspired on the benchmark program written by Bisseling, which measures the worst case g (throughput) and l (latency). Bisselings benchmark program can be found in the BSPedupack package, which is available at his website. The source code of the benchmark programs is available here and here.
The benchmark program measures the latency and throughput using two different methods.
During the tests, Oxfords implementation proved to be the most challenging
competitor, when it uses
Note:This difference between various communication primitives is not wanted. It makes predicting the running time of a BSP program complicated, because you have to deal with different g and l's. In fact: According to the BSP paradigm when calculating the running time of a BSP program you will have to pick the slowest l and g.
We now only consider Oxford BSP Toolset v1.4 using the
The latency increases much faster than the throughput decreases. Also note that the scale of the y-axes differ a factor 1000. One may conclude that latency becomes the most important factor when the number of processors grows. BSPonMPI is faster when the number of processors is 16 or more.
Now the latency increases much slower in comparison to the throughput. Although the time scales differ a factor 1000, the throughput becomes the dominant factor when the number of processors increases. From 16 processors on BSPonMPI is quicker when performing more than 50 puts
Measuring the throughput by varying the message size, only succeeded on Teras.
On Aster there wasn't a clear linear correspondence between message size and
Last changed at June 29th 2006