Re: CCL:Re: fortran Compiler for Linux Box. Options?
- From: David Konerding <dek (- at -) sun-ra.ucsf.edu>
- Subject: Re: CCL:Re: fortran Compiler for Linux Box. Options?
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 07:55:52 -0700
"William T. Rankin" writes:
>> I am willing to go freeware, but I would spend the money on
>> a good Fortran compiler to gain the performance. (I also believe
>> there is no freeware fortran compiler for f90 code!)
>
>I picked up some information form The Portland Group, who markets
>auto-parallelizing FORTRAN compilers for Linux. You may want to
>look them up at http://www.pgroup.com/
>
>Now having said that, I will point out that even with the best
>tools, simply running a compiler over existing serial FORTRAN
>codes will most likely not produce highly scalable parallel code
>without some sort of programmer direction from within the source.
Hi-
I've used both g77 the Portland Group compiler for AMBER 5.0 both with and
without MPI (message passing interface). I've had excellent results using
Portland Group's compiler. I didn't try the auto-parallelization, but I
did compile MPI with PG's C compiler and AMBER 5.0 with PG's f77 compiler.
Here are the results I got (times are in seconds) on my dual PPro 200MHz:
g77 opt -O6, ewald test:
496
g77 MPI opt -O6, dual proc, ewald test:
332
pgcc full opt, ewald test:
361
pgcc MPI full opt, dual proc, ewald test:
253
So, dual processors with g77 is faster than one with PGF77, but
PGF77 with dual processors is definitely the best. Paralogic
is going to let me test on their 4 processor platforms-
if this code scales well on intels, it'd definitely be a much
cheaper way to get the performance we need.
Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: dek (- at -) cgl.ucsf.edu David Konerding WWW: http://picasso.ucsf.edu/~dek
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------