Misc. corrections.

[hpcc2014.git] / hpcc.tex

diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex
index ff65e20634d2ee91ad4bc3410463529b3990091b..02940f04f8a350946f3b8bf9ba0e51b7663fcb30 100644 (file)
--- a/hpcc.tex
+++ b/hpcc.tex
@@ -25,10 +25,12 @@
 \usepackage[textsize=footnotesize]{todonotes}
 \newcommand{\AG}[2][inline]{%
   \todo[color=green!50,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{AG:} #2}\xspace}
 \usepackage[textsize=footnotesize]{todonotes}
 \newcommand{\AG}[2][inline]{%
   \todo[color=green!50,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{AG:} #2}\xspace}

-\newcommand{\RC}[2][inline]{%
-  \todo[color=red!10,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{RC:} #2}\xspace}
+\newcommand{\DL}[2][inline]{%
+  \todo[color=yellow!50,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{DL:} #2}\xspace}

 \newcommand{\LZK}[2][inline]{%
   \todo[color=blue!10,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{LZK:} #2}\xspace}
 \newcommand{\LZK}[2][inline]{%
   \todo[color=blue!10,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{LZK:} #2}\xspace}

+\newcommand{\RC}[2][inline]{%
+  \todo[color=red!10,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{RC:} #2}\xspace}

 
 \algnewcommand\algorithmicinput{\textbf{Input:}}
 \algnewcommand\Input{\item[\algorithmicinput]}
 
 \algnewcommand\algorithmicinput{\textbf{Input:}}
 \algnewcommand\Input{\item[\algorithmicinput]}


@@ -45,25 +47,56 @@
 
 \author{%
   \IEEEauthorblockN{%
 
 \author{%
   \IEEEauthorblockN{%

-    Charles Emile Ramamonjisoa and
-    David Laiymani and
-    Arnaud Giersch and
-    Lilia Ziane Khodja and
-    Raphaël Couturier
+    Charles Emile Ramamonjisoa\IEEEauthorrefmark{1},
+    David Laiymani\IEEEauthorrefmark{1},
+    Arnaud Giersch\IEEEauthorrefmark{1},
+    Lilia Ziane Khodja\IEEEauthorrefmark{2} and
+    Raphaël Couturier\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}
+  }
+  \IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}%
+    Femto-ST Institute -- DISC Department\\
+    Université de Franche-Comté,
+    IUT de Belfort-Montbéliard\\
+    19 avenue du Maréchal Juin, BP 527, 90016 Belfort cedex, France\\
+    Email: \email{{charles.ramamonjisoa,david.laiymani,arnaud.giersch,raphael.couturier}@univ-fcomte.fr}

   }
   }

-  \IEEEauthorblockA{%
-    Femto-ST Institute - DISC Department\\
-    Université de Franche-Comté\\
-    Belfort\\
-    Email: \email{{raphael.couturier,arnaud.giersch,david.laiymani,charles.ramamonjisoa}@univ-fcomte.fr}
+  \IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}%
+    Inria Bordeaux Sud-Ouest\\
+    200 avenue de la Vieille Tour, 33405 Talence cedex, France \\
+    Email: \email{lilia.ziane@inria.fr}

   }
 }
 
 \maketitle
 
   }
 }
 
 \maketitle
 

-\RC{Ordre des autheurs pas définitif.\\ Adresse de Lilia: Inria Bordeaux Sud-Ouest, 200 Avenue de la Vieille Tour, 33405 Talence Cedex, France \\ Email: lilia.ziane@inria.fr}
+\RC{Ordre des autheurs pas définitif.}

 \begin{abstract}
 \begin{abstract}

-The abstract goes here.
+In recent years, the scalability of large-scale implementation in a 
+distributed environment of algorithms becoming more and more complex has 
+always been hampered by the limits of physical computing resources 
+capacity. One solution is to run the program in a virtual environment 
+simulating a real interconnected computers architecture. The results are 
+convincing and useful solutions are obtained with far fewer resources 
+than in a real platform. However, challenges remain for the convergence 
+and efficiency of a class of algorithms that concern us here, namely 
+numerical parallel iterative algorithms executed in asynchronous mode, 
+especially in a large scale level. Actually, such algorithm requires a 
+balance and a compromise between computation and communication time 
+during the execution. Two important factors determine the success of the 
+experimentation: the convergence of the iterative algorithm on a large 
+scale and the execution time reduction in asynchronous mode. Once again, 
+from the current work, a simulated environment like SimGrid provides
+accurate results which are difficult or even impossible to obtain in a 
+physical platform by exploiting the flexibility of the simulator on the 
+computing units clusters and the network structure design. Our 
+experimental outputs showed a saving of up to \np[\%]{40} for the algorithm
+execution time in asynchronous mode compared to the synchronous one with 
+a residual precision up to \np{E-11}. Such successful results open
+perspectives on experimentations for running the algorithm on a 
+simulated large scale growing environment and with larger problem size. 
+
+% no keywords for IEEE conferences
+% Keywords: Algorithm distributed iterative asynchronous simulation SimGrid

 \end{abstract}
 
 \section{Introduction}
 \end{abstract}
 
 \section{Introduction}


@@ -74,11 +107,11 @@ researchers on various scientific disciplines but also by industrial in
 the field. Indeed, the increasing complexity of these requested 
 applications combined with a continuous increase of their sizes lead to 
 write distributed and parallel algorithms requiring significant hardware 
 the field. Indeed, the increasing complexity of these requested 
 applications combined with a continuous increase of their sizes lead to 
 write distributed and parallel algorithms requiring significant hardware 

-resources (grid computing, clusters, broadband network, etc\dots{}) but
+resources (grid computing, clusters, broadband network, etc.) but

 also a non-negligible CPU execution time. We consider in this paper a
 class of highly efficient parallel algorithms called iterative executed 
 in a distributed environment. As their name suggests, these algorithm 
 also a non-negligible CPU execution time. We consider in this paper a
 class of highly efficient parallel algorithms called iterative executed 
 in a distributed environment. As their name suggests, these algorithm 

-solves a given problem that might be NP- complete complex by successive 
+solves a given problem that might be NP-complete complex by successive

 iterations ($X_{n +1} = f(X_{n})$) from an initial value $X_{0}$ to find
 an approximate value $X^*$ of the solution with a very low
 residual error. Several well-known methods demonstrate the convergence 
 iterations ($X_{n +1} = f(X_{n})$) from an initial value $X_{0}$ to find
 an approximate value $X^*$ of the solution with a very low
 residual error. Several well-known methods demonstrate the convergence 


@@ -128,7 +161,7 @@ This article is structured as follows: after this introduction, the next
 section will give a brief description of iterative asynchronous model. 
 Then, the simulation framework SimGrid will be presented with the
 settings to create various distributed architectures. The algorithm of 
 section will give a brief description of iterative asynchronous model. 
 Then, the simulation framework SimGrid will be presented with the
 settings to create various distributed architectures. The algorithm of 

-the multi -splitting method used by GMRES written with MPI primitives 
+the multi-splitting method used by GMRES written with MPI primitives

 and its adaptation to SimGrid with SMPI (Simulated MPI) will be in the
 next section. At last, the experiments results carried out will be
 presented before the conclusion which we will announce the opening of 
 and its adaptation to SimGrid with SMPI (Simulated MPI) will be in the
 next section. At last, the experiments results carried out will be
 presented before the conclusion which we will announce the opening of 


@@ -136,16 +169,11 @@ our future work after the results.
  
 \section{The asynchronous iteration model}
 
  
 \section{The asynchronous iteration model}
 

-Décrire le modèle asynchrone. Je m'en charge (DL)
+\DL{Décrire le modèle asynchrone. Je m'en charge}

 
 \section{SimGrid}
 
 
 \section{SimGrid}
 

-Décrire SimGrid~\cite{casanova+legrand+quinson.2008.simgrid} (Arnaud)
-
-
-
-
-
+\AG{Décrire SimGrid~\cite{casanova+legrand+quinson.2008.simgrid} (Arnaud)}

 
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


@@ -170,7 +198,7 @@ B_1 \\
 \vdots\\
 B_L
 \end{array} \right)\] 
 \vdots\\
 B_L
 \end{array} \right)\] 

-in such a way that successive rows of matrix $A$ and both vectors $x$ and $b$ are assigned to one cluster, where for all $l,m\in\{1,\ldots,L\}$ $A_{lm}$ is a rectangular block of $A$ of size $n_l\times n_m$, $X_l$ and $B_l$ are sub-vectors of $x$ and $b$, respectively, each of size $n_l$ and $\sum_{l} n_l=\sum_{m} n_m=n$.
+in such a way that successive rows of matrix $A$ and both vectors $x$ and $b$ are assigned to one cluster, where for all $l,m\in\{1,\ldots,L\}$ $A_{lm}$ is a rectangular block of $A$ of size $n_l\times n_m$, $X_l$ and $B_l$ are sub-vectors of $x$ and $b$, respectively, of size $n_l$ each and $\sum_{l} n_l=\sum_{m} n_m=n$.

 
 The multisplitting method proceeds by iteration to solve in parallel the linear system on $L$ clusters of processors, in such a way each sub-system
 \begin{equation}
 
 The multisplitting method proceeds by iteration to solve in parallel the linear system on $L$ clusters of processors, in such a way each sub-system
 \begin{equation}


@@ -182,7 +210,7 @@ Y_l = B_l - \displaystyle\sum_{\substack{m=1\\ m\neq l}}^{L}A_{lm}X_m
 \right.
 \label{eq:4.1}
 \end{equation}
 \right.
 \label{eq:4.1}
 \end{equation}

-is solved independently by a cluster and communication are required to update the right-hand side sub-vector $Y_l$, such that the sub-vectors $X_m$ represent the data dependencies between the clusters. As each sub-system (\ref{eq:4.1}) is solved in parallel by a cluster of processors, our multisplitting method uses an iterative method as an inner solver which is easier to parallelize and more scalable than a direct method. In this work, we use the parallel algorithm of GMRES method~\cite{ref1} which is one of the most used iterative method by many researchers. 
+is solved independently by a cluster and communications are required to update the right-hand side sub-vector $Y_l$, such that the sub-vectors $X_m$ represent the data dependencies between the clusters. As each sub-system (\ref{eq:4.1}) is solved in parallel by a cluster of processors, our multisplitting method uses an iterative method as an inner solver which is easier to parallelize and more scalable than a direct method. In this work, we use the parallel algorithm of GMRES method~\cite{ref1} which is one of the most used iterative method by many researchers. 

 
 \begin{algorithm}
 \caption{A multisplitting solver with GMRES method}
 
 \begin{algorithm}
 \caption{A multisplitting solver with GMRES method}


@@ -190,7 +218,7 @@ is solved independently by a cluster and communication are required to update th
 \Input $A_l$ (sparse sub-matrix), $B_l$ (right-hand side sub-vector)
 \Output $X_l$ (solution sub-vector)\vspace{0.2cm}
 \State Load $A_l$, $B_l$
 \Input $A_l$ (sparse sub-matrix), $B_l$ (right-hand side sub-vector)
 \Output $X_l$ (solution sub-vector)\vspace{0.2cm}
 \State Load $A_l$, $B_l$

-\State Initialize the solution vector $x^0$
+\State Set the initial guess $x^0$

 \For {$k=0,1,2,\ldots$ until the global convergence}
 \State Restart outer iteration with $x^0=x^k$
 \State Inner iteration: \Call{InnerSolver}{$x^0$, $k+1$}
 \For {$k=0,1,2,\ldots$ until the global convergence}
 \State Restart outer iteration with $x^0=x^k$
 \State Inner iteration: \Call{InnerSolver}{$x^0$, $k+1$}


@@ -218,7 +246,7 @@ Algorithm~\ref{algo:01} shows the main key points of the multisplitting method t
 \label{fig:4.1}
 \end{figure}
 
 \label{fig:4.1}
 \end{figure}
 

-The global convergence of the asynchronous multisplitting solver is detected when the clusters of processors have all converged locally. We implemented the global convergence detection process as follows. On each cluster a master processor is designated (for example the processor with rank $1$) and masters of all clusters are interconnected by a virtual unidirectional ring network (see Figure~\ref{fig:4.1}). During the resolution, a Boolean token circulates around the virtual ring from a master processor to another until the global convergence is achieved. So starting from the cluster with rank $1$, each master processor $i$ sets the token to {\it True} if the local convergence is achieved or to {\it False} otherwise, and sends it to master processor $i+1$. Finally, the global convergence is detected when the master of cluster $1$ receive from the master of cluster $L$ a token set to {\it True}. In this case, the master of cluster $1$ sends a stop message to masters of other clusters. In this work, the local convergence on each cluster $l$ is detected when the following condition is satisfied
+The global convergence of the asynchronous multisplitting solver is detected when the clusters of processors have all converged locally. We implemented the global convergence detection process as follows. On each cluster a master processor is designated (for example the processor with rank $1$) and masters of all clusters are interconnected by a virtual unidirectional ring network (see Figure~\ref{fig:4.1}). During the resolution, a Boolean token circulates around the virtual ring from a master processor to another until the global convergence is achieved. So starting from the cluster with rank $1$, each master processor $i$ sets the token to {\it True} if the local convergence is achieved or to {\it False} otherwise, and sends it to master processor $i+1$. Finally, the global convergence is detected when the master of cluster $1$ receives from the master of cluster $L$ a token set to {\it True}. In this case, the master of cluster $1$ broadcasts a stop message to masters of other clusters. In this work, the local convergence on each cluster $l$ is detected when the following condition is satisfied

 \[(k\leq \MI) \mbox{~or~} (\|X_l^k - X_l^{k+1}\|_{\infty}\leq\epsilon)\]
 where $\MI$ is the maximum number of outer iterations and $\epsilon$ is the tolerance threshold of the error computed between two successive local solution $X_l^k$ and $X_l^{k+1}$. 
 
 \[(k\leq \MI) \mbox{~or~} (\|X_l^k - X_l^{k+1}\|_{\infty}\leq\epsilon)\]
 where $\MI$ is the maximum number of outer iterations and $\epsilon$ is the tolerance threshold of the error computed between two successive local solution $X_l^k$ and $X_l^{k+1}$. 
 


@@ -234,7 +262,7 @@ where $\MI$ is the maximum number of outer iterations and $\epsilon$ is the tole
 
 \section{Experimental results}
 
 
 \section{Experimental results}
 

-When the ``real'' application runs in the simulation environment and produces
+When the \emph{real} application runs in the simulation environment and produces

 the expected results, varying the input parameters and the program arguments
 allows us to compare outputs from the code execution. We have noticed from this
 study that the results depend on the following parameters: (1) at the network
 the expected results, varying the input parameters and the program arguments
 allows us to compare outputs from the code execution. We have noticed from this
 study that the results depend on the following parameters: (1) at the network


@@ -242,11 +270,12 @@ level, we found that the most critical values are the bandwidth (bw) and the
 network latency (lat). (2) Hosts power (GFlops) can also influence on the
 results. And finally, (3) when submitting job batches for execution, the
 arguments values passed to the program like the maximum number of iterations or
 network latency (lat). (2) Hosts power (GFlops) can also influence on the
 results. And finally, (3) when submitting job batches for execution, the
 arguments values passed to the program like the maximum number of iterations or

-the ``external'' precision are critical to ensure not only the convergence of the
+the \emph{external} precision are critical to ensure not only the convergence of the

 algorithm but also to get the main objective of the experimentation of the
 simulation in having an execution time in asynchronous less than in synchronous
 algorithm but also to get the main objective of the experimentation of the
 simulation in having an execution time in asynchronous less than in synchronous

-mode, in others words, in having a ``speedup'' less than 1 (Speedup = Execution
-time in synchronous mode / Execution time in asynchronous mode).
+mode, in others words, in having a \emph{speedup} less than 1
+({speedup}${}={}${execution time in synchronous mode}${}/{}${execution time in
+asynchronous mode}).

 
 A priori, obtaining a speedup less than 1 would be difficult in a local area
 network configuration where the synchronous mode will take advantage on the rapid
 
 A priori, obtaining a speedup less than 1 would be difficult in a local area
 network configuration where the synchronous mode will take advantage on the rapid


@@ -259,7 +288,7 @@ clusters linked with long distance network like Internet.
 As a first step, the algorithm was run on a network consisting of two clusters
 containing fifty hosts each, totaling one hundred hosts. Various combinations of
 the above factors have providing the results shown in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} with a matrix size
 As a first step, the algorithm was run on a network consisting of two clusters
 containing fifty hosts each, totaling one hundred hosts. Various combinations of
 the above factors have providing the results shown in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} with a matrix size

-ranging from Nx = Ny = Nz = 62 to 171 elements or from $62^{3} = \np{238328}$ to
+ranging from $N_x = N_y = N_z = 62 \text{ to } 171$ elements or from $62^{3} = \np{238328}$ to

 $171^{3} = \np{5211000}$ entries.
 
 Then we have changed the network configuration using three clusters containing
 $171^{3} = \np{5211000}$ entries.
 
 Then we have changed the network configuration using three clusters containing


@@ -289,8 +318,8 @@ lat latency, \dots{}).
        \item Description of the cluster architecture;
        \item Maximum number of internal and external iterations;
        \item Internal and external precisions;
        \item Description of the cluster architecture;
        \item Maximum number of internal and external iterations;
        \item Internal and external precisions;

-       \item Matrix size NX, NY and NZ;
-       \item Matrix diagonal value = 6.0;
+       \item Matrix size $N_x$, $N_y$ and $N_z$;
+       \item Matrix diagonal value: \np{6.0};

        \item Execution Mode: synchronous or asynchronous.
 \end{itemize}
 
        \item Execution Mode: synchronous or asynchronous.
 \end{itemize}
 


@@ -298,7 +327,10 @@ lat latency, \dots{}).
   \centering
   \caption{2 clusters X 50 nodes}
   \label{tab.cluster.2x50}
   \centering
   \caption{2 clusters X 50 nodes}
   \label{tab.cluster.2x50}

-  \AG{Les images manquent dans le dépôt Git. Si ce sont vraiment des tableaux, utiliser un format vectoriel (eps ou pdf), et surtout pas de jpeg!}
+  \AG{Ces tableaux (\ref{tab.cluster.2x50}, \ref{tab.cluster.3x33} et
+    \ref{tab.cluster.3x67}) sont affreux. Utiliser un format vectoriel (eps ou
+    pdf) ou, mieux, les réécrire en \LaTeX{}. Réécrire les légendes proprement
+    également (\texttt{\textbackslash{}times} au lieu de \texttt{X} par ex.)}

   \includegraphics[width=209pt]{img1.jpg}
 \end{table}
 
   \includegraphics[width=209pt]{img1.jpg}
 \end{table}
 


@@ -306,7 +338,7 @@ lat latency, \dots{}).
   \centering
   \caption{3 clusters X 33 nodes}
   \label{tab.cluster.3x33}
   \centering
   \caption{3 clusters X 33 nodes}
   \label{tab.cluster.3x33}

-  \AG{Le fichier manque.}
+  \AG{Refaire le tableau.}

   \includegraphics[width=209pt]{img2.jpg}
 \end{table}
 
   \includegraphics[width=209pt]{img2.jpg}
 \end{table}
 


@@ -314,7 +346,7 @@ lat latency, \dots{}).
   \centering
   \caption{3 clusters X 67 nodes}
   \label{tab.cluster.3x67}
   \centering
   \caption{3 clusters X 67 nodes}
   \label{tab.cluster.3x67}

-  \AG{Le fichier manque.}
+  \AG{Refaire le tableau.}

 %  \includegraphics[width=160pt]{img3.jpg}
   \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{img3.jpg}
 \end{table}
 %  \includegraphics[width=160pt]{img3.jpg}
   \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{img3.jpg}
 \end{table}


@@ -344,15 +376,43 @@ For the 3 clusters architecture including a total of 100 hosts, Table~\ref{tab.c
 that it was difficult to have a combination which gives an efficiency of
 asynchronous below \np[\%]{80}. Indeed, for a matrix size of 62 elements, equality
 between the performance of the two modes (synchronous and asynchronous) is
 that it was difficult to have a combination which gives an efficiency of
 asynchronous below \np[\%]{80}. Indeed, for a matrix size of 62 elements, equality
 between the performance of the two modes (synchronous and asynchronous) is

-achieved with an inter cluster of \np[Mbits/s]{10} and a latency of \np{E-1} ms. To
+achieved with an inter cluster of \np[Mbits/s]{10} and a latency of \np[ms]{E-1}. To

 challenge an efficiency by \np[\%]{78} with a matrix size of 100 points, it was
 necessary to degrade the inter cluster network bandwidth from 5 to 2 Mbit/s.
 
 challenge an efficiency by \np[\%]{78} with a matrix size of 100 points, it was
 necessary to degrade the inter cluster network bandwidth from 5 to 2 Mbit/s.
 

-A last attempt was made for a configuration of three clusters but more power
+A last attempt was made for a configuration of three clusters but more powerful

 with 200 nodes in total. The convergence with a speedup of \np[\%]{90} was obtained
 with a bandwidth of \np[Mbits/s]{1} as shown in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x67}.
 
 \section{Conclusion}
 with 200 nodes in total. The convergence with a speedup of \np[\%]{90} was obtained
 with a bandwidth of \np[Mbits/s]{1} as shown in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x67}.
 
 \section{Conclusion}

+The experimental results on executing a parallel iterative algorithm in 
+asynchronous mode on an environment simulating a large scale of virtual 
+computers organized with interconnected clusters have been presented. 
+Our work has demonstrated that using such a simulation tool allow us to 
+reach the following three objectives: 
+
+\newcounter{numberedCntD}
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item To have a flexible configurable execution platform resolving the 
+hard exercise to access to very limited but so solicited physical 
+resources;
+\item to ensure the algorithm convergence with a raisonnable time and 
+iteration number ;
+\item and finally and more importantly, to find the correct combination 
+of the cluster and network specifications permitting to save time in 
+executing the algorithm in asynchronous mode.
+\setcounter{numberedCntD}{\theenumi}
+\end{enumerate}
+Our results have shown that in certain conditions, asynchronous mode is 
+speeder up to \np[\%]{40} than executing the algorithm in synchronous mode
+which is not negligible for solving complex practical problems with more 
+and more increasing size.
+
+ Several studies have already addressed the performance execution time of 
+this class of algorithm. The work presented in this paper has 
+demonstrated an original solution to optimize the use of a simulation 
+tool to run efficiently an iterative parallel algorithm in asynchronous 
+mode in a grid architecture. 

 
 \section*{Acknowledgment}
 
 
 \section*{Acknowledgment}