From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:32:18 -0500 From: Eric Van Hensbergen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] grid computing -- high performance? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6bb9e88ad7834fe55fbacaaa8f68c706@plan9.ucalgary.ca> <4149C6E6.1020304@anvil.com> <6e35c062040916155773c7f658@mail.gmail.com> <4152CB13.1050902@tommyk.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: e78fe23e-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:16:23 -1000 (HST), Tim Newsham wrote: > I know that people experiment with plan 9 for grid computing, > since the operating system is well suited for it. I was wondering > if it is used for actual high performance work? We may end up looking at that a little later this year - at least on ppc64 power4-type systems. > > Do people use the plan 9 compilers? It doesn't seem like the p9 compilers > are suited for high performance number crunching (not that I think they > are bad compilers). > It all depends on what you want to do. We were trying to hand-schedule some HPC code and the gcc compilers (and xlc compilers) with their gratuitous cleverness completely screwed up our hand-scheduling. If you really know what you are doing, simple compilers are your friend. > Have people ported optimizing compilers? If > so, which ones, and are they available? Hogan's GCC port might be something to look at (not that I consider GCC to be an optimal compiler - but it'll have a different set of optimizations than the Plan 9 compiler and might support stuff like SSE). -eric