Dear Gabriele and Stefano,
Thank you very much for your explanations.
Bests,
Mahmoud
> It means that since very little communication is needed across different
> images this parallelization does not suffer much (at all) if the
> communication network is not very fast... however it does not
> distribute the memory and I/O ... which may be bad for the efficiency
> of the calculation as we are learning these days from the discussion
> going on on pool parallelization (which also is less-communication and
> more-memory&I/O intensive than R&G parallelization)...
> My today understanding of this is that one could increase the number of
> processors using R&G parallelization as far as the network at hand
> allows to get a good scaling... then one can increase further the number
> of processors by adding pool parallelization and, in case of NEB
> calculations, some image parallelization.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Stefano de Gironcoli
>
> Mahmoud Payami wrote:
>> Dear ALL,
>>
>> In sec. of "parallelization issues" of UG, is mentioned that: "As a
>> general rule, image parallelization may give good scaling..."
>> Could anybody please explain what exactly it means in terms of say,
>> static linking, using more npools, or so.
>>
>> Bests,
>> Mahmoud Payami
>> Physics Group, AEOI.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pw_forum mailing list
>> Pw_forum at pwscf.org
>> http://www.democritos.it/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pw_forum mailing list
> Pw_forum at pwscf.org
> http://www.democritos.it/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
>
>
