[cadynce] Additional GT4 simulations completed, results summarized..

[Adam Porter]

Hi Gaurav,

	When you generate the "special, critical path sensitive allocation", 
please send it to me too.

Thanks,

Adam



Gautam Thaker wrote:
> The link below shows the summary of my results for GT4.
> 
> https://repo.isis.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/bin/view/CADYNCE/OneFiftyFiftyCase1#Summary_of_All_the_Runs 
> 
> 
> It is curious to note that forcing all "critical path" processing to be 
> highest priority does not give us much different results than "equal 
> priorities". I have verified that preemptive, priority based scheduling 
> is properly modeled. I have to look more into this issue, but I suspect 
> results may hold and are prob. due to fact that "critical path" 
> processing of all 10 strings simply creates enough interference to make 
> these larger end to end times so.
> 
> I wonder if we can do an allocation where all 60 processes of 10 
> critical strings (each having 6 processes) can be spread in such a 
> manner on 50 blades that no more than one critical process is on one 
> blade (which it shares w/ other non-critical process) for 40 of them and 
> 10 of them do share. The shared ones can be the ones that somehow would 
> have least impact.
> 
> Gaurav, can we try to find such a 50 blade allocation? I would like to 
> run this case as "special, critical path sensitive allocation".
> 
> Gautam
> _______________________________________________
> Cadynce mailing list
> Cadynce at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
> http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/cadynce