X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/hpcc2014.git/blobdiff_plain/8a9c44cff1e89fecee221a84aa00ac7be4d7b827..d0df474d3df1a66a6e43d1513fc3e9ed1248d2ed:/hpcc.tex diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex index dc76042..22fa047 100644 --- a/hpcc.tex +++ b/hpcc.tex @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@ - \documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} @@ -509,7 +508,7 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = \begin{table}[!t] \centering \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared to GMRES for - different configurations with 2 clusters, each one composed of 50 nodes.} + different configurations with 2 clusters, each one composed of 50 nodes. Latency = $20$ms} \label{tab.cluster.2x50} \begin{mytable}{5} @@ -517,14 +516,14 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = bandwidth (Mbit/s) & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 \\ \hline - latency (ms) - & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ - \hline + % latency (ms) + % & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ + %\hline power (GFlops) & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\ \hline size $(N)$ - & 62 & 62 & 62 & 100 & 100 \\ + & $62^3$ & $62^3$ & $62^3$ & $100^3$ & $100^3$ \\ \hline Precision & \np{E-5} & \np{E-8} & \np{E-9} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} \\ @@ -542,14 +541,14 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = bandwidth (Mbit/s) & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 \\ % & 10 & 10 \\ \hline - latency (ms) - & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ % & 0.03 & 0.01 \\ - \hline + %latency (ms) + %& 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ % & 0.03 & 0.01 \\ + %\hline Power (GFlops) & 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\ % & 1 & 1.5 \\ \hline size $(N)$ - & 110 & 120 & 130 & 140 & 150 \\ % & 171 & 171 \\ + & $110^3$ & $120^3$ & $130^3$ & $140^3$ & $150^3$ \\ % & 171 & 171 \\ \hline Precision & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} \\ % & \np{E-5} & \np{E-5} \\ @@ -561,7 +560,7 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = \end{mytable} \end{table} -\RC{Du coup la latence est toujours la même, pourquoi la mettre dans la table?} +%\RC{Du coup la latence est toujours la même, pourquoi la mettre dans la 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 @@ -664,12 +663,12 @@ asynchronous multisplitting compared to GMRES with two distant clusters. With these settings, Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} shows that after setting the bandwidth of the inter cluster network to \np[Mbit/s]{5} and a latency in order of one hundredth of millisecond and a processor power of one GFlops, an efficiency of about \np[\%]{40} is -obtained in asynchronous mode for a matrix size of 62 elements. It is noticed that the result remains +obtained in asynchronous mode for a matrix size of $62^3$ elements. It is noticed that the result remains stable even we vary the residual error precision from \np{E-5} to \np{E-9}. By -increasing the matrix size up to 100 elements, it was necessary to increase the +increasing the matrix size up to $100^3$ elements, it was necessary to increase the CPU power of \np[\%]{50} to \np[GFlops]{1.5} to get the algorithm convergence and the same order of asynchronous mode efficiency. Maintaining such processor power but increasing network throughput inter cluster up to \np[Mbit/s]{50}, the result of efficiency with a relative gain of 2.5 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 $110^3$ to $150^3$ side elements. %For the 3 clusters architecture including a total of 100 hosts, @@ -679,8 +678,8 @@ elements. %(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 greater than 1.2 with a matrix %size of 100 points, it was necessary to degrade the %inter cluster network bandwidth from 5 to \np[Mbit/s]{2}. -\AG{Conclusion, on prend une plateforme pourrie pour avoir un bon ratio sync/async ??? - Quelle est la perte de perfs en faisant ça ?} +%\AG{Conclusion, on prend une plateforme pourrie pour avoir un bon ratio sync/async ??? + %Quelle est la perte de perfs en faisant ça ?} %A last attempt was made for a configuration of three clusters but more powerful %with 200 nodes in total. The convergence with a relative gain around 1.1 was @@ -704,7 +703,7 @@ reach the following two objectives: \item To test the combination of the cluster and network specifications permitting to execute an asynchronous algorithm faster than a synchronous one. \end{enumerate} -Our results have shown that with two distant clusters, the asynchronous multisplitting is faster to \np[\%]{40} compared to the synchronous GMRES method +Our results have shown that with two distant clusters, the asynchronous multisplitting method is faster to \np[\%]{40} compared to the synchronous GMRES method which is not negligible for solving complex practical problems with more and more increasing size. @@ -715,7 +714,7 @@ tool to run efficiently an iterative parallel algorithm in asynchronous mode in a grid architecture. In future works, we plan to extend our experimentations to larger scale platforms by increasing the number of computing cores and the number of clusters. -We will also have to increase the size of the input problem which will require the use of a more powerful simulation platform. At last, we expect to compare our simulation results to real execution results on real architectures in order to experimentally validate our study. +We will also have to increase the size of the input problem which will require the use of a more powerful simulation platform. At last, we expect to compare our simulation results to real execution results on real architectures in order to better experimentally validate our study. Finally, we also plan to study other problems with the multisplitting method and other asynchronous iterative methods. \section*{Acknowledgment}