Hi Erik,
Thanks for the quick reply! It certainly sounds like Epyc may be an interesting and competitive option.
Best, Geraint
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 18:19, Erik Schnetter schnetter@cct.lsu.edu wrote:
Geraint
Regarding BLAS: I recommend using OpenBLAS instead of MKL there (but haven't compared performance). There is a thorn ExternalLibraries/OpenBLAS (part of the ET, but not enabled by default) that interfaces to OpenBLAS and/or builds OpenBLAS if it is not already available on the system.
I am not aware of any issues. Regarding benchmarking, thorn CactusUtils/Vectors supports SIMD vectorization, and it should already support Epyc. From the technical discussions on the web it seems that they should be well suited for the ET. In particular the large L1 instruction cache should be quite beneficial.
Thank you for the pointer to the Prace best Epyc practices.
-erik
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:50 AM Geraint Pratten geraint.pratten@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
Does anyone have any experience running on AMD Epyc cores? It seems that
these are becoming quite trendy and I found a pretty decent best practice guide that Prace released
http://www.prace-ri.eu/best-practice-guide-amd-epyc
However, whenever I've compiled ET recently its typically been on Intel
cores + Intel compiler + Intel MKL etc. However, Intel MKL is notorious for being subotpimal on non-Intel cores. Does anyone know of any possible issues that could arise when running ET on AMD Epyc cores? Similarly (and likely optimistically), has anyone had the chance to benchmark the performance of ET on the AMD cores?
Thanks! Geraint _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@einsteintoolkit.org http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Erik Schnetter schnetter@cct.lsu.edu http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/