CPU AMD Epyc 7302 x2, RAM 16G DDR4 x16 (meaning motherboard has two Epyc 7302 processors installed and 16 memory modules, 16G each) 5m10s per sector (one sector is encoded at a time by default) 6m0s per sector, 4 sectors at a time (meaning number of downloaded and encoded sectors was manually incre…

Did you customize any CLI options related to thread pool size or number of encoded sectors in new version? They will interfere with the intended behavior. Overall it is possible that on some CPUs it will still be non-ideal in some configurations, for example in case of your 8272CL it is simply not …

Looks plausible, though impact of NUMA-aware memory allocator seems huge, especially considering that 7002 Epyc processors use I/O die and I don’t think there should be significant difference between accessing any of the memory channels, though you do have two physical sockets and maybe crossing fro…

The optimization in the new version is still not as fast as running multiple instances of the software.

You numbers say the opposite though :thinking:

This is the test data you gave. [image] NUMA support is coming General For a long time farmers were saying that plotting is slow on large CPUs, now it is time to change that! I’ve been hacking on NUMA support that should make things much better and need folks…

[image] z_W: This is the test data you gave. I mean in your first message version of the farmer with NUMA support is faster than version without NUMA support (even when configured to plot 4 sectors at a time). Why are you saying it is not as fast as running multiple instances?

I have a server with only two NUMA nodes. Running the test version, the speed is 5m-6m*2, but I can only open one software. When I open two, the speed drops to over 10 minutes. Without using the NUMA version, I can open four software, each running stably at 7m*1. EPYC7302*2 is your CPU

Hm… the whole point of the new version is to utilize CPU fully, you shouldn’t need more than one instance because it’ll be less efficient, which is exactly what you see. Running multiple instances was a workaround for not supporting NUMA that is no longer necessary.

Ah, sorry for confusion. Those were just examples, they are made up numbers and just provided for illustration purposes to show how to submit test results.

My CPU has many cores, but there are only two NUMA nodes. I expect the ideal speed for my CPU to be 7m-8m4. However, the actual speed is 5m-6m2.

[image] z_W: I expect the ideal speed for my CPU to be 7m-8m4 Why? [image] z_W: However, the actual speed is 5m-6m2 Isn’t this not a good thing?

Is this NUMA test result real?

Support

z_W January 3, 2024, 12:28pm 5

This is the test data you gave.

Topic		Replies	Views
NUMA support is coming General farmer , performance , plotting	25	1695	February 1, 2024
Flexible assignment of cores to concurrent plotters Research plotting	2	287	January 25, 2024
NUMA aware plotter slows during replotting Support	6	302	January 9, 2024
A plotting application with one SSD is much faster than a plotting application with multiple SSDs Support	8	427	October 22, 2023
Worse sector speeds & misses than before, dual Epyc 7532, Windows 10, Mar 29 release Support	17	255	April 2, 2024

Is this NUMA test result real?

Related topics