Hi, I tried adding up the costs. It did not seem like a cost effective approach. The cost for a large switch was always less than the cost for the total number of smaller switches required. It would make sense for a giant cluster though where you cannot get a switch so large (say 1024 nodes or something). I also tried to find a way of implementing a meshed network (see Becker's paper on alternative network topologies) but a person on the beowulf list pointed out that the queing software etc may not support this (since a single host gets 2 IP addresses. older gethostbyaddr() and gethostbyname() did not return the list of all addresses). Implementation of a meshed network becomes more difficult with the FNN than with a simple network topology with a larger switch (in part due to the fact that you have only 3 or 4 PCI slots on a motherboard). \Indraneel On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 02:16:48PM -0400, jfreeman wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I was talking to the folks yesterday's BAMCAT > (http://xanadu.mgh.harvard.edu/bambct/) meeting and the cost of switches > came up as a possible problem, so I remembered seeing the Flat Network > Neighborhood (FNN) model used on the computer KLAT2. > > See: > http://aggregate.org/KLAT2/ > > In short they use cheap 8 port switches to connect large numbers of > cluster computers and put two nic cards in each box to handle the > routing. They wire the network based on the output from a genetic > algorithm which takes the number of nodes, the number of ports in the > switch and the number of nics in the computer and gives out the > switching fabric. > > I haven't tried it myself, we have big enough switch at the moment, but > it seemed like an interesting approach. > > Good Luck, > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > Bioclusters maillist - Bioclusters@bioinformatics.org > http://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/bioclusters > -- http://www.indialine.org/indraneel/