cunumeric VS ompi

I am biased because this is my research area, but I have to respectfully disagree. Actor models are awful, and the only reason it's not obvious is because everything else is even more awful.

But if you look at e.g., the recent work on task-based models, you'll see that you can have literally sequential programs that parallelize automatically. No message passing, no synchronization, no data races, no deadlocks. Read your programs as if they're sequential, and you immediately understand their semantics. Some of these systems are able to scale to thousands of nodes.

An interesting example of this is cuNumeric, which allows you to take sequential Python programs that use NumPy, and by changing one line (the import statement), run automatically on clusters of GPUs. It is 100% pure awesomeness.

https://github.com/nv-legate/cunumeric

(I don't work on cuNumeric, but I do work on the runtime framework that cuNumeric uses.)

I know this probably isn't intended for performance, but it would be fun to run this in cuNumeric [1] and see how it scales.

[1]: https://github.com/nv-legate/cunumeric

If you want built-in GPU support (and distributed), you should check out cuNumeric (released by NVIDIA in the last week or so). Also avoids needing to manually specify chunk sizes, like it says in a sibling comment.

https://github.com/nv-legate/cunumeric

Try dask

Distribute your data and run everything as dask.delayed and then compute only at the end.

Also check out legate.numpy from Nvidia which promises to be a drop in numpy replacement that will use all your CPU cores without any tweaks on your part.

https://github.com/nv-legate/legate.numpy

Something for the HPC tools category: https://github.com/nv-legate/legate.numpy

You might be interested in Legate [1]. It supports the NumPy interface as a drop-in replacement, supports GPUs and also distributed machines. And you can see for yourself their performance results; they're not far off from hand-tuned MPI.

[1]: https://github.com/nv-legate/legate.numpy

Disclaimer: I work on the library Legate uses for distributed computing, but otherwise have no connection.

The commercial Linux world (see https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/issues/4349) and other open source OSes (eg FreeBSD) seem to have lined up behind little-endian PowerPC. IBM still has a big-endian problem with AIX, IBM i, and Linux on Z.

Roughly, the sets of computational problems that people used (use?) MPI for. Things like numerical solvers for sparse matrices that are so big that you need to split them across your entire cluster. These still require a lot of node-to-node communication, and on top of it, the pattern is dependent on each problem (so easy solutions like map-reduce are effectively out). See eg https://www.open-mpi.org/, and https://courses.csail.mit.edu/18.337/2005/book/Lecture_08-Do... for the prototypical use case.

One of the guys at the local LUG is one of the lead maintainers of Open MPI. He told us about a comment that ran into the hundreds of lines, all for a one-line change in the code.

But it would be very inconvenient to have to keep crediting everyone who's ever worked on it. If you look at old projects, their licenses can have like 10-20 of those lines (here's one I was recently looking into).

I have a bit of experience programming for a highly-parallel supercomputer, specifically in my case an IBM BlueGene/Q. In that case, the answer is a lot of message passing (we used Open MPI [0]). Since the nodes are discrete and don't have any shared memory, you end up with something kinda reminiscent of the actor model as popularized by Erlang and co -- but in C for number-crunching performance.

That said, each of the nodes is itself composed of multiple cores with shared memory. So in cases where you really want to grind out performance, you actually end up using message passing to divvy up chunks of work, and then use classic pthreads to parallelize things further, with lower latency.

Debugging is a bit of a nightmare, though, since some bugs inevitably only come up once you have a large number of nodes running the algorithm in parallel. But you'll probably be in a mainframe-style time-sharing setup, so you may have to wait hours or more to rerun things.

This applies less to some of the newer supercomputers, which are more or less clusters of GPUs instead of clusters of CPUs. I imagine there's some commonality, but I haven't worked with any of them so I can't really say.

[0] https://www.open-mpi.org/

I would suggest using OpenMPI because it's pretty easy to get started with. You can build OpenMPI with CUDA support, then you can pass device pointers directly to MPI_Send and MPI_Recv. Then you don't have to deal with transfers and synchronization issues.

backends from native torch distributed configuration: nccl, gloo, mpi.

I use a linux ubuntu machine with MPI (https://www.open-mpi.org/). I had a question on making my computer simulations faster. Would be better to get an older AMD 9590 machine clocked at 4.7 ghz or continue using my Ryzen 7 1700 machine clocked at something like 3.5ghz?

OpenMPI - Message passing interface implementation. BSD-3-Clause