LAM/MPI General User's Mailing List Archives

From: Wa-Kun Lam (rexchaos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-26 08:45:37

• Next message: David Singleton: "Re: LAM: re: FFTW is not that good !?"
• Previous message: Jeremy Archuleta: "Re: LAM: FFTW is not that good !?"
• Next in thread: David Singleton: "Re: LAM: re: FFTW is not that good !?"
• Reply: David Singleton: "Re: LAM: re: FFTW is not that good !?"

>If you are using 2.1.5, and you don't have good results with FFTW,
>there is something wrong with your setup. I have used 2.1.5 extensively
>and have found it to be almost 100% scalable.
I do use fftw 2.1.5. I think I setup fftw in correct way because I
install it according to document step by step. By the way, have to try
my code? Is the effeciency bad in your side too?

• Next message: David Singleton: "Re: LAM: re: FFTW is not that good !?"
• Previous message: Jeremy Archuleta: "Re: LAM: FFTW is not that good !?"
• Next in thread: David Singleton: "Re: LAM: re: FFTW is not that good !?"
• Reply: David Singleton: "Re: LAM: re: FFTW is not that good !?"