X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/hpcc2014.git/blobdiff_plain/8873e8d5fdf0737801b25abfbdea45ec4340ad2a..8e535991311d246854e7597c06cdee25b67c8419:/hpcc.tex?ds=inline diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex index e9433c7..c9606c3 100644 --- a/hpcc.tex +++ b/hpcc.tex @@ -121,34 +121,48 @@ at that time. Even if the number of iterations required before the convergence i synchronous case, AIAC algorithms can significantly reduce overall execution times by suppressing idle times due to synchronizations especially in a grid computing context (see~\cite{Bahi07} for more details). -Parallel numerical applications (synchronous or asynchronous) may have different configuration and deployment -requirements. Quantifying their resource allocation policies and application scheduling algorithms in -grid computing environments under varying load, CPU power and network speeds is very costly, very labor intensive and very time -consuming~\cite{Calheiros:2011:CTM:1951445.1951450}. The case of AIAC algorithms is even more problematic since they are very sensible to the -execution environment context. For instance, variations in the network bandwidth (intra and inter-clusters), in the -number and the power of nodes, in the number of clusters... can lead to very different number of iterations and so to -very different execution times. Then, it appears that the use of simulation tools to explore various platform -scenarios and to run large numbers of experiments quickly can be very promising. In this way, the use of a simulation -environment to execute parallel iterative algorithms found some interests in reducing the highly cost of access to -computing resources: (1) for the applications development life cycle and in code debugging (2) and in production to get -results in a reasonable execution time with a simulated infrastructure not accessible with physical resources. Indeed, -the launch of distributed iterative asynchronous algorithms to solve a given problem on a large-scale simulated -environment challenges to find optimal configurations giving the best results with a lowest residual error and in the -best of execution time. - -To our knowledge, there is no existing work on the large-scale simulation of a real AIAC application. The aim of this -paper is twofold. First we give a first approach of the simulation of AIAC algorithms using a simulation tool (i.e. the -SimGrid toolkit~\cite{SimGrid}). Second, we confirm the effectiveness of asynchronous mode algorithms by comparing their -performance with the synchronous mode. More precisely, we had implemented a program for solving large non-symmetric -linear system of equations by numerical method GMRES (Generalized Minimal Residual) []. We show, that with minor -modifications of the initial MPI code, the SimGrid toolkit allows us to perform a test campaign of a real AIAC -application on different computing architectures. The simulated results we obtained are in line with real results -exposed in ??\AG[]{??}. SimGrid had allowed us to launch the application from a modest computing infrastructure by simulating -different distributed architectures composed by clusters nodes interconnected by variable speed networks. -With selected parameters on the network platforms (bandwidth, latency of inter cluster network) and -on the clusters architecture (number, capacity calculation power) in the simulated environment, the experimental results -have demonstrated not only the algorithm convergence within a reasonable time compared with the physical environment -performance, but also a time saving of up to \np[\%]{40} in asynchronous mode. +Parallel numerical applications (synchronous or asynchronous) may have different +configuration and deployment requirements. Quantifying their resource +allocation policies and application scheduling algorithms in grid computing +environments under varying load, CPU power and network speeds is very costly, +very labor intensive and very time +consuming~\cite{Calheiros:2011:CTM:1951445.1951450}. The case of AIAC +algorithms is even more problematic since they are very sensible to the +execution environment context. For instance, variations in the network bandwidth +(intra and inter-clusters), in the number and the power of nodes, in the number +of clusters\dots{} can lead to very different number of iterations and so to +very different execution times. Then, it appears that the use of simulation +tools to explore various platform scenarios and to run large numbers of +experiments quickly can be very promising. In this way, the use of a simulation +environment to execute parallel iterative algorithms found some interests in +reducing the highly cost of access to computing resources: (1) for the +applications development life cycle and in code debugging (2) and in production +to get results in a reasonable execution time with a simulated infrastructure +not accessible with physical resources. Indeed, the launch of distributed +iterative asynchronous algorithms to solve a given problem on a large-scale +simulated environment challenges to find optimal configurations giving the best +results with a lowest residual error and in the best of execution time. + +To our knowledge, there is no existing work on the large-scale simulation of a +real AIAC application. The aim of this paper is twofold. First we give a first +approach of the simulation of AIAC algorithms using a simulation tool (i.e. the +SimGrid toolkit~\cite{SimGrid}). Second, we confirm the effectiveness of +asynchronous mode algorithms by comparing their performance with the synchronous +mode. More precisely, we had implemented a program for solving large +non-symmetric linear system of equations by numerical method GMRES (Generalized +Minimal Residual) []\AG[]{[]?}. We show, that with minor modifications of the +initial MPI code, the SimGrid toolkit allows us to perform a test campaign of a +real AIAC application on different computing architectures. The simulated +results we obtained are in line with real results exposed in ??\AG[]{??}. +SimGrid had allowed us to launch the application from a modest computing +infrastructure by simulating different distributed architectures composed by +clusters nodes interconnected by variable speed networks. With selected +parameters on the network platforms (bandwidth, latency of inter cluster +network) and on the clusters architecture (number, capacity calculation power) +in the simulated environment, the experimental results have demonstrated not +only the algorithm convergence within a reasonable time compared with the +physical environment performance, but also a time saving of up to \np[\%]{40} in +asynchronous mode. 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 is presented with the settings to create various @@ -184,18 +198,25 @@ in a grid computing context. \end{figure} -It is very challenging to develop efficient applications for large scale, heterogeneous and distributed platforms such -as computing grids. Researchers and engineers have to develop techniques for maximizing application performance of these -multi-cluster platforms, by redesigning the applications and/or by using novel algorithms that can account for the -composite and heterogeneous nature of the platform. Unfortunately, the deployment of such applications on these very -large scale systems is very costly, labor intensive and time consuming. In this context, it appears that the use of -simulation tools to explore various platform scenarios at will and to run enormous numbers of experiments quickly can be -very promising. Several works... +It is very challenging to develop efficient applications for large scale, +heterogeneous and distributed platforms such as computing grids. Researchers and +engineers have to develop techniques for maximizing application performance of +these multi-cluster platforms, by redesigning the applications and/or by using +novel algorithms that can account for the composite and heterogeneous nature of +the platform. Unfortunately, the deployment of such applications on these very +large scale systems is very costly, labor intensive and time consuming. In this +context, it appears that the use of simulation tools to explore various platform +scenarios at will and to run enormous numbers of experiments quickly can be very +promising. Several works\dots{} -In the context of AIAC algorithms, the use of simulation tools is even more relevant. Indeed, this class of applications -is very sensible to the execution environment context. For instance, variations in the network bandwidth (intra and -inter-clusters), in the number and the power of nodes, in the number of clusters... can lead to very different number of -iterations and so to very different execution times. +\AG{Several works\dots{} what?\\ + Le paragraphe suivant se trouve déjà dans l'intro ?} +In the context of AIAC algorithms, the use of simulation tools is even more +relevant. Indeed, this class of applications is very sensible to the execution +environment context. For instance, variations in the network bandwidth (intra +and inter-clusters), in the number and the power of nodes, in the number of +clusters\dots{} can lead to very different number of iterations and so to very +different execution times. @@ -318,7 +339,21 @@ exchanged by message passing using MPI non-blocking communication routines. \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 $1$ 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 +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 \textit{True} if the local convergence is achieved or to +\text\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 \textit{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 \begin{equation*} (k\leq \MI) \text{ or } (\|X_l^k - X_l^{k+1}\|_{\infty}\leq\epsilon) \end{equation*} @@ -326,25 +361,34 @@ where $\MI$ is the maximum number of outer iterations and $\epsilon$ is the tole \LZK{Description du processus d'adaptation de l'algo multisplitting à SimGrid} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -We did not encounter major blocking problems when adapting the multisplitting algorithm previously described to a simulation environment like SIMGRID unless some code -debugging. Indeed, apart from the review of the program sequence for asynchronous exchanges between the six neighbors of each point in a submatrix within a cluster or -between clusters, the algorithm was executed successfully with SMPI and provided identical outputs as those obtained with direct execution under MPI. In synchronous -mode, the execution of the program raised no particular issue but in asynchronous mode, the review of the sequence of MPI\_Isend, MPI\_Irecv and MPI\_Waitall instructions -and with the addition of the primitive MPI\_Test was needed to avoid a memory fault due to an infinite loop resulting from the non-convergence of the algorithm. Note here that the use of SMPI -functions optimizer for memory footprint and CPU usage is not recommended knowing that one wants to get real results by simulation. -As mentioned, upon this adaptation, the algorithm is executed as in the real life in the simulated environment after the following minor changes. First, all declared -global variables have been moved to local variables for each subroutine. In fact, global variables generate side effects arising from the concurrent access of -shared memory used by threads simulating each computing units in the SimGrid architecture. Second, the alignment of certain types of variables such as ``long int'' had -also to be reviewed. Finally, some compilation errors on MPI\_Waitall and MPI\_Finalize primitives have been fixed with the latest version of SimGrid. -In total, the initial MPI program running on the simulation environment SMPI gave after a very simple adaptation the same results as those obtained in a real -environment. We have tested in synchronous mode with a simulated platform starting from a modest 2 or 3 clusters grid to a larger configuration like simulating -Grid5000 with more than 1500 hosts with 5000 cores~\cite{bolze2006grid}. Once the code debugging and adaptation were complete, the next section shows our methodology and experimental -results. - - - - - +We did not encounter major blocking problems when adapting the multisplitting +algorithm previously described to a simulation environment like SimGrid unless +some code debugging. Indeed, apart from the review of the program sequence for +asynchronous exchanges between the six neighbors of each point in a submatrix +within a cluster or between clusters, the algorithm was executed successfully +with SMPI and provided identical outputs as those obtained with direct execution +under MPI. In synchronous mode, the execution of the program raised no +particular issue but in asynchronous mode, the review of the sequence of +MPI\_Isend, MPI\_Irecv and MPI\_Waitall instructions and with the addition of +the primitive MPI\_Test was needed to avoid a memory fault due to an infinite +loop resulting from the non-convergence of the algorithm. Note here that the use +of SMPI functions optimizer for memory footprint and CPU usage is not +recommended knowing that one wants to get real results by simulation. As +mentioned, upon this adaptation, the algorithm is executed as in the real life +in the simulated environment after the following minor changes. First, all +declared global variables have been moved to local variables for each +subroutine. In fact, global variables generate side effects arising from the +concurrent access of shared memory used by threads simulating each computing +units in the SimGrid architecture. Second, the alignment of certain types of +variables such as ``long int'' had also to be reviewed. Finally, some +compilation errors on MPI\_Waitall and MPI\_Finalize primitives have been fixed +with the latest version of SimGrid. In total, the initial MPI program running +on the simulation environment SMPI gave after a very simple adaptation the same +results as those obtained in a real environment. We have tested in synchronous +mode with a simulated platform starting from a modest 2 or 3 clusters grid to a +larger configuration like simulating Grid5000 with more than 1500 hosts with +5000 cores~\cite{bolze2006grid}. Once the code debugging and adaptation were +complete, the next section shows our methodology and experimental results. \section{Experimental results} @@ -352,31 +396,33 @@ results. 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: -\begin{itemize} -\item At the network level, we found that -the most critical values are the bandwidth (bw) and the network latency (lat). -\item Hosts power (GFlops) can also -influence on the results. -\item Finally, when submitting job batches for execution, the arguments values passed to the -program like the maximum number of iterations or the \emph{external} precision are critical. They allow 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 mode (i.e. speed-up less than $1$). +\begin{itemize} +\item At the network level, we found that the most critical values are the + bandwidth (bw) and the network latency (lat). +\item Hosts power (GFlops) can also influence on the results. +\item Finally, when submitting job batches for execution, the arguments values + passed to the program like the maximum number of iterations or the + \emph{external} precision are critical. They allow 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 mode (i.e. speed-up less than 1). \end{itemize} -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 -exchange of information on such high-speed links. Thus, the methodology adopted -was to launch the application on clustered network. In this last configuration, -degrading the inter-cluster network performance will \emph{penalize} the synchronous -mode allowing to get a speedup lower than $1$. This action simulates the case of -clusters linked with long distance network like Internet. +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 exchange of information on such high-speed links. Thus, the methodology +adopted was to launch the application on clustered network. In this last +configuration, degrading the inter-cluster network performance will +\emph{penalize} the synchronous mode allowing to get a speedup lower than 1. +This action simulates the case of clusters linked with long distance network +like Internet. As a first step, the algorithm was run on a network consisting of two clusters -containing $50$ hosts each, totaling $100$ hosts. Various combinations of -the above factors have providing the results shown in -Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} with a matrix size 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. +containing 50 hosts each, totaling 100 hosts. Various combinations of the above +factors have providing the results shown in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} with a +matrix size ranging from $N_x = N_y = N_z = \text{62}$ to 171 elements or from +$\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{171}^\text{3} = +\text{\np{5211000}}$ entries. % use the same column width for the following three tables \newlength{\mytablew}\settowidth{\mytablew}{\footnotesize\np{E-11}} @@ -388,7 +434,7 @@ Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} with a matrix size ranging from $N_x = N_y = N_z = \begin{table}[!t] \centering - \caption{$2$ clusters, each with $50$ nodes} + \caption{2 clusters, each with 50 nodes} \label{tab.cluster.2x50} \begin{mytable}{6} @@ -439,14 +485,14 @@ Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} with a matrix size ranging from $N_x = N_y = N_z = \end{table} Then we have changed the network configuration using three clusters containing -respectively $33$, $33$ and $34$ hosts, or again by on hundred hosts for all the +respectively 33, 33 and 34 hosts, or again by on hundred hosts for all the clusters. In the same way as above, a judicious choice of key parameters has permitted to get the results in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x33} which shows the -speedups less than $1$ with a matrix size from $62$ to $100$ elements. +speedups less than 1 with a matrix size from 62 to 100 elements. \begin{table}[!t] \centering - \caption{$3$ clusters, each with $33$ nodes} + \caption{3 clusters, each with 33 nodes} \label{tab.cluster.3x33} \begin{mytable}{6} @@ -495,7 +541,7 @@ Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x67}. \hline speedup & 0.9 \\ \hline - \end{mytable} + \end{mytable} \end{table} Note that the program was run with the following parameters: @@ -535,21 +581,21 @@ bandwidth, a latency in order of a hundredth of a millisecond and a system power of one GFlops, an efficiency of about \np[\%]{40} in asynchronous mode is obtained for a matrix size of 62 elements. It is noticed that the result remains stable even if we vary the external precision from \np{E-5} to \np{E-9}. By -increasing the problem size up to $100$ elements, it was necessary to increase the +increasing the problem size up to 100 elements, it was necessary to increase the CPU power of \np[\%]{50} to \np[GFlops]{1.5} for a convergence of the algorithm with the same order of asynchronous mode efficiency. Maintaining such a system power but this time, increasing network throughput inter cluster up to \np[Mbit/s]{50}, the result of efficiency of about \np[\%]{40} is obtained with -high external precision of \np{E-11} for a matrix size from $110$ to $150$ side +high external precision of \np{E-11} for a matrix size from 110 to 150 side elements. -For the $3$ clusters architecture including a total of 100 hosts, +For the 3 clusters architecture including a total of 100 hosts, Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x33} shows 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 +matrix size of 62 elements, equality between the performance of the two modes (synchronous and asynchronous) is achieved with an inter cluster of \np[Mbit/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 +\np[\%]{78} with a matrix size of 100 points, it was necessary to degrade the inter cluster network bandwidth from 5 to \np[Mbit/s]{2}. A last attempt was made for a configuration of three clusters but more powerful