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
For the purpose of performing strong scaling experiments using HyperSpace, I propose the following:
HyperSpace as it is has a method called “hyperdrive” which runs each subspace/optimization on its own single rank/core. There is also “dualdrive” which runs 2 subspaces/optimizations per rank/core.
In order to perform strong scaling, we would need to create more of this functions, e.g. quadrive, octadrive, etc (I made those names up), so we can run 4 optimizations per rank, 8 optimizations per rank, 16 optimizations per rank, etc.
Eventually, we would like to name this method something like “multipledrive”, and specify the number of optimizations we would like per rank/core as an argument.
You can see a more detailed conversation about the topic in the following issue:
Yeah, that would be possible. In the case that `num_subspaces > num_ranks`, we could place the remaining `num_subspaces - num_ranks` on ranks that already have a search space to work on. I don't think that would take much to make that happen.
For the purpose of performing strong scaling experiments using HyperSpace, I propose the following:
HyperSpace as it is has a method called “hyperdrive” which runs each subspace/optimization on its own single rank/core. There is also “dualdrive” which runs 2 subspaces/optimizations per rank/core.
In order to perform strong scaling, we would need to create more of this functions, e.g. quadrive, octadrive, etc (I made those names up), so we can run 4 optimizations per rank, 8 optimizations per rank, 16 optimizations per rank, etc.
Eventually, we would like to name this method something like “multipledrive”, and specify the number of optimizations we would like per rank/core as an argument.
You can see a more detailed conversation about the topic in the following issue:
Originally posted by @yngtodd in #23 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: