You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
How to have a definition of (requested or assigned) resources that are easy to understand, but still keeps a sufficiently sophisticated level of granularity as well as the possibility of heterogeneous resources (both in type, e.g. CPUs+GPUs and numbers, e.g. one node with 4 cores and X Mb of memory and 3 nodes with 8 cores and Y Mb of memory).
At the (simplest) level of cpus/processors/cores, a naming convention should be adopted (there does not seem to be any standard that stands out on this). One example could be:
Smallest computing "entity": CORE
A PROCESSOR is made of several COREs
A NODE is made of several PROCESSORs
A Supercomputer has many NODEs (possibly different in types/sizes/...)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
How to have a definition of (requested or assigned) resources that are easy to understand, but still keeps a sufficiently sophisticated level of granularity as well as the possibility of heterogeneous resources (both in type, e.g. CPUs+GPUs and numbers, e.g. one node with 4 cores and X Mb of memory and 3 nodes with 8 cores and Y Mb of memory).
At the (simplest) level of cpus/processors/cores, a naming convention should be adopted (there does not seem to be any standard that stands out on this). One example could be:
Smallest computing "entity": CORE
A PROCESSOR is made of several COREs
A NODE is made of several PROCESSORs
A Supercomputer has many NODEs (possibly different in types/sizes/...)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: