Newsgroups: comp.parallel.pvm
From: adilger@enel.ucalgary.ca (Andreas Dilger)
Subject: Re: PvmDataInPlace takes longer than PvmDataRaw???
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Date: 7 Aug 1995 07:26:24 GMT
Message-ID: <404f70$bua@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>

In article <3vtqmn$qu7@news.uncc.edu>,
Stuart D Blackburn <sdblackb@uncc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>PVM Version 3.2 output  
>	* 20x10x10 matrix with 0.01 tolerance
>	* Using PvmDataInPlace encoding
>
>Slave 1 finished 76 iterations in 5.3855 seconds
>==============================================================
>PVM Version 3.1 output  
>	* 20x10x10 matrix with 0.01 tolerance
>	* Using PvmDataRaw encoding
>
>Slave 1 finished 76 iterations in 2.5458 seconds
[snip]

I've been looking at this, an I wonder if the output you're giving is
actually from 2 differenct versions of PVM, or is this coincidentally the
version numbers of your software?  I'm guessing PVM versions here, so I
wonder if you have tried running with PVM 3.2 and PvmDataRaw?  It is
possible that there is something else with the PVM code that is slowing
things down.  

Cheers, Andreas.
-- 
Andreas Dilger    University of Calgary   \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and
(403) 220-8792    Micronet Research Group  \  a pound of antipasto, would they
Dept of Electrical & Computer Engineering   \    cancel out, leaving him still
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/          hungry?" -- Dogbert

