\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{graphicx}
+\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{subfig}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:perf}
\textit T_\textit{new} =
- \max_{i=1,2,\dots,N} (TcpOld_{i} \cdot S_{i}) + MinTcm
+ \max_{i=1,2,\dots,N} ({TcpOld_{i}} \cdot S_{i}) + MinTcm
\end{equation}
where $TcpOld_i$ is the computation time of processor $i$ during the first iteration and $MinTcm$ is the communication time of the slowest processor from the first iteration. The model computes the maximum computation time
with scaling factor from each node added to the communication time of the slowest node, it means only the
- communication time without any slack time. Therefore, we can consider the execution time of the iterative application is the execution time of one iteration as in EQ(\ref{eq:perf}) multiply by the number of iterations of the application.
+ communication time without any slack time. Therefore, we can consider the execution time of the iterative application is equal to the execution time of one iteration as in EQ(\ref{eq:perf}) multiplied by the number of iterations of that application.
This prediction model is based on our model for predicting the execution time of message passing distributed applications for homogeneous architectures~\cite{45}. The execution time prediction model is used in our method for optimizing both energy consumption and performance of iterative methods, which is presented in the following sections.
\subsection{Energy model for heterogeneous platform}
-
Many researchers~\cite{9,3,15,26} divide the power consumed by a processor into
two power metrics: the static and the dynamic power. While the first one is
consumed as long as the computing unit is turned on, the latter is only consumed during
scaling factors $(S_1, S_2,\dots, S_N)$ may degrade the performance of the
application and thus, increase the static energy because the execution time is
increased~\cite{36}. We can measure the overall energy consumption for the iterative
-application by measuring the energy consumption from one iteration as in EQ(\ref{eq:energy}) multiply by
-the number of iterations of the iterative application.
+application by measuring the energy consumption for one iteration as in EQ(\ref{eq:energy}) multiplied by
+the number of iterations of that application.
\section{Optimization of both energy consumption and performance}
E_\textit{Norm} = \frac{E_\textit{Reduced}}{E_\textit{Original}} \\
{} = \frac{ \sum_{i=1}^{N}{(S_i^{-2} \cdot Pd_i \cdot Tcp_i)} +
\sum_{i=1}^{N} {(Ps_i \cdot T_{New})}}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}{( Pd_i \cdot Tcp_i)} +
- \sum_{i=1}^{N} {(Ps_i \cdot T_{Old})}}
+ \sum_{i=1}^{N} {(Ps_i@+eYd162 \cdot T_{Old})}}
\end{multline}
Where $T_{New}$ and $T_{Old}$ are computed as in EQ(\ref{eq:pnorm}).
work with any energy model or any power values for each node (static and dynamic powers).
However, the most energy reduction gain can be achieved when the energy curve has a convex form as shown in~\cite{15,3,19}.
-\section{The heterogeneous scaling algorithm }
+\section{The scaling factors selection algorithm for heterogeneous platforms }
\label{sec.optim}
-In this section we are proposed a heterogeneous scaling algorithm,
-(figure~\ref{HSA}), that selects the optimal vector of the frequency scaling factors from each
-node. The algorithm is numerates the suitable range of available vectors of the frequency scaling
-factors for all node in a heterogeneous cluster, returns a vector of optimal
-frequency scaling factors define as $Sopt_1,Sopt_2,\dots,Sopt_N$. Using heterogeneous cluster
-has different computing powers is produces different workloads for each node. Therefore, the fastest nodes waiting at the
-synchronous barrier for the slowest nodes to finish there work as in figure
-(\ref{fig:heter}). Our algorithm is takes into account these imbalanced workloads
-when is starts to search for selecting the best vector of the frequency scaling factors. So, the
-algorithm is selects the initial frequencies values for each node proportional
-to the times of computations that gathered from the first iteration. As an
-example in figure (\ref{fig:st_freq}), the algorithm don't tests the first
-frequencies of the computing nodes until their frequencies is converge to the
-frequency of the slowest node. The operational frequency gear not surly related to computing power, therefore the algorithm
-rapprochement the frequencies according to the computing power of each frequency. Moreover, If the algorithm is starts to test change the
-frequency of the slowest node from the first gear, we are loosing the performance and
-then the best trade-off relation (the maximum distance) be not reachable. This case will be similar
-to a homogeneous cluster when all nodes scale down their frequencies together from
-the first gears. Therefore, there is a small distance between the energy and
-the performance curves in a homogeneous cluster compare to heterogeneous one, for example see the figure(\ref{fig:r1}) and figure(\ref{fig:r2}) . Then the
-algorithm starts to search for the optimal vector of the frequency scaling factors from the selected initial
-frequencies until all node reach their minimum frequencies.
-\begin{figure}[t]
- \centering
- \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig/start_freq}
- \caption{Selecting the initial frequencies}
- \label{fig:st_freq}
-\end{figure}
+In this section we propose algorithm~(\ref{HSA}) which selects the frequency scaling factors vector that gives the best trade-off between minimizing the energy consumption and maximizing the performance of a message passing synchronous iterative application executed on a heterogeneous platform.
+It works online during the execution time of the iterative message passing program. It uses information gathered during the first iteration such as the computation time and the communication time in one iteration for each node. The algorithm is executed after the first iteration and returns a vector of optimal frequency scaling factors that satisfies the objective function EQ(\ref{eq:max}). The program apply DVFS operations to change the frequencies of the CPUs according to the computed scaling factors. This algorithm is called just once during the execution of the program. Algorithm~(\ref{dvfs}) shows where and when the proposed scaling algorithm is called in the iterative MPI program.
-To compute the initial frequencies in each node, the algorithm firstly needs to compute the computation scaling factors $Scp_i$ of the node $i$. Each one of these factors is represents a ratio between the computation time of the slowest node and the computation time of the node $i$ as follow:
+The nodes in a heterogeneous platform have different computing powers, thus while executing message passing iterative synchronous applications, fast nodes have to wait for the slower ones to finish their computations before being able to synchronously communicate with them as in figure (\ref{fig:heter}). These periods are called idle or slack times.
+Our algorithm takes into account this problem and tries to reduce these slack times when selecting the frequency scaling factors vector. At first, it selects initial frequency scaling factors that increase the execution times of fast nodes and minimize the differences between the computation times of fast and slow nodes. The value of the initial frequency scaling factor for each node is inversely proportional to its computation time that was gathered from the first iteration. These initial frequency scaling factors are computed as a ratio between the computation time of the slowest node and the computation time of the node $i$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Scp}
Scp_{i} = \frac{\max_{i=1,2,\dots,N}(Tcp_i)}{Tcp_i}
\end{equation}
-Depending on the initial computation scaling factors EQ(\ref{eq:Scp}), the algorithm computes the initial frequencies for all nodes as a ratio between the
-maximum frequency of node $i$ and the computation scaling factor $Scp_i$ as follow:
+Using the initial frequency scaling factors computed in EQ(\ref{eq:Scp}), the algorithm computes the initial frequencies for all nodes as a ratio between the
+maximum frequency of node $i$ and the computation scaling factor $Scp_i$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Fint}
F_{i} = \frac{Fmax_i}{Scp_i},~{i=1,2,\cdots,N}
\end{equation}
-\begin{figure}[tp]
+If the computed initial frequency for a node is not available in the gears of that node, the computed initial frequency is replaced by the nearest available frequency.
+In figure (\ref{fig:st_freq}), the nodes are sorted by their computing powers in ascending order and the frequencies of the faster nodes are scaled down according to the computed initial frequency scaling factors. The resulting new frequencies are colored in blue in figure (\ref{fig:st_freq}). This set of frequencies can be considered as a higher bound for the search space of the optimal vector of frequencies because selecting frequency scaling factors higher than the higher bound will not improve the performance of the application and it will increase its overall energy consumption. Therefore the algorithm that selects the frequency scaling factors starts the search method from these initial frequencies and takes a downward search direction toward lower frequencies. The algorithm iterates on all left frequencies, from the higher bound until all nodes reach their minimum frequencies, to compute their overall energy consumption and performance, and select the optimal frequency scaling factors vector. At each iteration the algorithm determines the slowest node according to EQ(\ref{eq:perf}) and keeps its frequency unchanged, while it lowers the frequency of all other nodes by one gear.
+The new overall energy consumption and execution time are computed according to the new scaling factors. The optimal set of frequency scaling factors is the set that gives the highest distance according to the objective function EQ(\ref{eq:max}).
+
+The plots~(\ref{fig:r1} and \ref{fig:r2}) illustrate the normalized performance and consumed energy for an application running on a homogeneous platform and a heterogeneous platform respectively while increasing the scaling factors. It can be noticed that in a homogeneous platform the search for the optimal scaling factor should be started from the maximum frequency because the performance and the consumed energy is decreased since the beginning of the plot. On the other hand, in the heterogeneous platform the performance is maintained at the beginning of the plot even if the frequencies of the faster nodes are decreased until the scaled down nodes have computing powers lower than the slowest node. In other words, until they reach the higher bound. It can also be noticed that the higher the difference between the faster nodes and the slower nodes is, the bigger the maximum distance between the energy curve and the performance curve is while varying the scaling factors which results in bigger energy savings.
+\begin{figure}[t]
+ \centering
+ \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig/start_freq}
+ \caption{Selecting the initial frequencies}
+ \label{fig:st_freq}
+\end{figure}
+
+
+
+
+
+\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
% \footnotesize
\Require ~
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Heterogeneous scaling algorithm}
\label{HSA}
-\end{figure}
-When the initial frequencies are computed, the algorithm numerates all available
-frequency scaling factors starting from the initial frequencies until all nodes reach their
-minimum frequencies. At each iteration the algorithm determine the slowest node according to EQ(\ref{eq:perf}).
-It is remains the frequency of the slowest node without change, while it is scales down the frequency of the other
-nodes. This is improved the execution time degradation and energy saving in the same time.
-The proposed algorithm works online during the execution time of the iterative MPI program. It is
-returns a vector of optimal frequency scaling factors depending on the
-objective function EQ(\ref{eq:max}). The program changes the new frequencies of
-the CPUs according to the computed scaling factors. This algorithm has a small
-execution time: for a heterogeneous cluster composed of four different types of
-nodes having the characteristics presented in table~(\ref{table:platform}), it
-takes \np[ms]{0.04} on average for 4 nodes and \np[ms]{0.15} on average for 144
-nodes. The algorithm complexity is $O(F\cdot (N \cdot4) )$, where $F$ is the
-number of iterations and $N$ is the number of computing nodes. The algorithm
-needs on average from 12 to 20 iterations to selects the best vector of frequency scaling factors that give the results of the next section. It is called just once during the execution of the program. The DVFS algorithm in figure~(\ref{dvfs}) shows where
-and when the proposed scaling algorithm is called in the iterative MPI program.
-\begin{figure}[tp]
+\end{algorithm}
+
+\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
% \footnotesize
\For {$k=1$ to \textit{some iterations}}
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{DVFS algorithm}
\label{dvfs}
-\end{figure}
+\end{algorithm}
\section{Experimental results}
\label{sec.expe}
+To evaluate the efficiency and the overall energy consumption reduction of algorithm~(\ref{HSA}), it was applied to the NAS parallel benchmarks NPB v3.3
+\cite{44}. The experiments were executed on the simulator SimGrid/SMPI
+v3.10~\cite{casanova+giersch+legrand+al.2014.versatile} which offers easy tools to create a heterogeneous platform and run message passing applications over it. The heterogeneous platform that was used in the experiments, had one core per node because just one process was executed per node. The heterogeneous platform was composed of four types of nodes. Each type of nodes had different characteristics such as the maximum CPU frequency, the number of
+available frequencies and the computational power, see table
+(\ref{table:platform}). The characteristics of these different types of nodes are inspired from the specifications of real Intel processors. The heterogeneous platform had up to 144 nodes and had nodes from the four types in equal proportions, for example if a benchmark was executed on 8 nodes, 2 nodes from each type were used. Since the constructors of CPUs do not specify the dynamic and the static power of their CPUs, for each type of node they were chosen proportionally to its computing power (FLOPS). In the initial heterogeneous platform, while computing with highest frequency, each node consumed power proportional to its computing power which 80\% of it was dynamic power and the rest was 20\% was static power, the same assumption was made in \cite{45,3}. Finally, These nodes were connected via an ethernet network with 1 Gbit/s bandwidth.
+
-The experiments of this work are executed on the simulator SimGrid/SMPI
-v3.10~\cite{casanova+giersch+legrand+al.2014.versatile}. We are configure the
-simulator to use a heterogeneous cluster with one core per node. The proposed
-heterogeneous cluster has four different types of nodes. Each node in the cluster
-has different characteristics such as the maximum frequency speed, the number of
-available frequencies and dynamic and static powers values, see table
-(\ref{table:platform}). These different types of processing nodes are simulate some
-real Intel processors. The maximum number of nodes that supported by the cluster
-is 144 nodes according to characteristics of some MPI programs of the NAS
-benchmarks that used. We are use the same number from each type of nodes when we
-run the iterative MPI programs, for example if we are execute the program on 8 node, there
-are 2 nodes from each type participating in the computation. The dynamic and
-static power values is different from one type to other. Each node has a dynamic
-and static power values proportional to their computing power (FLOPS), for more
-details see the Intel data sheets in \cite{47}. Each node has a percentage of
-80\% for dynamic power and 20\% for static power of the total power
-consumption of a CPU, the same assumption is made in \cite{45,3}. These nodes are
-connected via an ethernet network with 1 Gbit/s bandwidth.
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Heterogeneous nodes characteristics}
% title of Table
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}}
\hline
- Node & Similar & Max & Min & Diff. & Dynamic & Static \\
- type & to & Freq. GHz & Freq. GHz & Freq GHz & power & power \\
+ Node &Simulated & Max & Min & Diff. & Dynamic & Static \\
+ type &GFLOPS & Freq. & Freq. & Freq. & power & power \\
+ & & GHz & GHz &GHz & & \\
\hline
- 1 & core-i3 & 2.5 & 1.2 & 0.1 & 20~w &4~w \\
- & 2100T & & & & & \\
+ 1 &40 & 2.5 & 1.2 & 0.1 & 20~w &4~w \\
+ & & & & & & \\
\hline
- 2 & Xeon & 2.66 & 1.6 & 0.133 & 25~w &5~w \\
- & 7542 & & & & & \\
+ 2 &50 & 2.66 & 1.6 & 0.133 & 25~w &5~w \\
+ & & & & & & \\
\hline
- 3 & core-i5 & 2.9 & 1.2 & 0.1 & 30~w &6~w \\
- & 3470s & & & & & \\
+ 3 &60 & 2.9 & 1.2 & 0.1 & 30~w &6~w \\
+ & & & & & & \\
\hline
- 4 & core-i7 & 3.4 & 1.6 & 0.133 & 35~w &7~w \\
- & 2600s & & & & & \\
+ 4 &70 & 3.4 & 1.6 & 0.133 & 35~w &7~w \\
+ & & & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:platform}
\subsection{The experimental results of the scaling algorithm}
\label{sec.res}
-The proposed algorithm was applied to seven MPI programs of the NAS benchmarks (EP, CG, MG, FT, BT, LU and SP) NPB v3.3
-\cite{44}, which were run with three classes (A, B and C).
-In this experiments we are interested to run the class C, the biggest class compared to A and B, on different number of
-nodes, from 4 to 128 or 144 nodes according to the type of the iterative MPI program. Depending on the proposed energy consumption model EQ(\ref{eq:energy}),
- we are measure the energy consumption for all NAS MPI programs. The dynamic and static power values are used under the same assumption used by \cite{45,3}, we are used a percentage of 80\% for dynamic power and 20\% for static of the total power consumption of a CPU. The heterogeneous nodes in table (\ref{table:platform}) have different simulated computing power (FLOPS), ranked from the node of type 1 with smaller computing power (FLOPS) to the highest computing power (FLOPS) for node of type 4. Therefore, the power values are used proportionally increased from nodes of type 1 to nodes of type 4 that with highest computing power. Then, we are used an assumption that the power consumption is increased linearly when the computing power (FLOPS) of the processor is increased, see \cite{48}.
+
+The proposed algorithm was applied to the seven parallel NAS benchmarks (EP, CG, MG, FT, BT, LU and SP) and the benchmarks were executed with the three classes: A,B and C. However, due to the lack of space in this paper, only the results of the biggest class, C, are presented while being run on different number of nodes, ranging from 4 to 128 or 144 nodes depending on the benchmark being executed. Indeed, the benchmarks CG, MG, LU, EP and FT should be executed on $1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128$ nodes. The other benchmarks such as BT and SP should be executed on $1, 4, 9, 16, 36, 64, 144$ nodes.
+
+
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 4 nodes }
\end{tabular}
\label{table:res_128n}
\end{table}
+The overall energy consumption was computed for each instance according to the energy consumption model EQ(\ref{eq:energy}), with and without applying the algorithm. The execution time was also measured for all these experiments. Then, the energy saving and performance degradation percentages were computed for each instance.
+The results are presented in tables (\ref{table:res_4n}, \ref{table:res_8n}, \ref{table:res_16n}, \ref{table:res_32n}, \ref{table:res_64n} and \ref{table:res_128n}). All these results are the average values from many experiments for energy savings and performance degradation.
+
+The tables show the experimental results for running the NAS parallel benchmarks on different number of nodes. The experiments show that the algorithm reduce significantly the energy consumption (up to 35\%) and tries to limit the performance degradation. They also show that the energy saving percentage is decreased when the number of the computing nodes is increased. This reduction is due to the increase of the communication times compared to the execution times when the benchmarks are run over a high number of nodes. Indeed, the benchmarks with the same class, C, are executed on different number of nodes, so the computation required for each iteration is divided by the number of computing nodes. On the other hand, more communications are required when increasing the number of nodes so the static energy is increased linearly according to the communication time and the dynamic power is less relevant in the overall energy consumption. Therefore, reducing the frequency with algorithm~(\ref{HSA}) have less effect in reducing the overall energy savings. It can also be noticed that for the benchmarks EP and SP that contain little or no communications, the energy savings are not significantly affected with the high number of nodes. No experiments were conducted using bigger classes such as D, because they require a lot of memory(more than 64GB) when being executed by the simulator on one machine.
+The maximum distance between the normalized energy curve and the normalized performance for each instance is also shown in the result tables. It is decreased in the same way as the energy saving percentage. The tables also show that the performance degradation percentage is not significantly increased when the number of computing nodes is increased because the computation times are small when compared to the communication times.
-The results of applying the proposed scaling algorithm to the NAS benchmarks is demonstrated in tables (\ref{table:res_4n}, \ref{table:res_8n}, \ref{table:res_16n}, \ref{table:res_32n}, \ref{table:res_64n} and \ref{table:res_128n}). These tables are show the experimental results for running the NAS benchmarks on different number of nodes. In general the energy saving percent is decreased when the number of the computing nodes is increased. Also the distance is decreased by the same direction of the energy saving. This because when we are run the iterative MPI programs on a big number of nodes the communications times is increased, so the static energy is increased linearly to these times. The tables also show that the performance degradation percent still approximately the same ratio or decreased in a very small present when the number of computing nodes is increased. This is gives a good prove that the proposed algorithm keeping the performance degradation as mush as possible is the same.
+
\begin{figure}
\centering
- \subfloat[CG, MG, LU and FT benchmarks]{%
- \includegraphics[width=.23185\textwidth]{fig/avg_eq}\label{fig:avg_eq}}%
+ \subfloat[Energy saving]{%
+ \includegraphics[width=.2315\textwidth]{fig/energy}\label{fig:energy}}%
\quad%
- \subfloat[BT and SP benchmarks]{%
- \includegraphics[width=.23185\textwidth]{fig/avg_neq}\label{fig:avg_neq}}
+ \subfloat[Performance degradation ]{%
+ \includegraphics[width=.2315\textwidth]{fig/per_deg}\label{fig:per_deg}}
\label{fig:avg}
- \caption{The average of energy and performance for all NAS benchmarks running with difference number of nodes}
+ \caption{The energy and performance for all NAS benchmarks running with difference number of nodes}
\end{figure}
-In the NAS benchmarks there are some programs executed on different number of
-nodes. The benchmarks CG, MG, LU and FT executed on 2 to a power of (1, 2, 4, 8,
-\dots{}) of nodes. The other benchmarks such as BT and SP executed on 2 to a
-power of (1, 2, 4, 9, \dots{}) of nodes. We are take the average of energy
-saving, performance degradation and distances for all results of NAS
-benchmarks. The average of values of these three objectives are plotted to the number of
-nodes as in plots (\ref{fig:avg_eq} and \ref{fig:avg_neq}). In CG, MG, LU, and
-FT benchmarks the average of energy saving is decreased when the number of nodes
-is increased because the communication times is increased as mentioned
-before. Thus, the average of distances (our objective function) is decreased
-linearly with energy saving while keeping the average of performance degradation approximately is
-the same. In BT and SP benchmarks, the average of the energy saving is not decreased
-significantly compare to other benchmarks when the number of nodes is
-increased. Nevertheless, the average of performance degradation approximately
-still the same ratio. This difference is depends on the characteristics of the
-benchmarks such as the computation to communication ratio that has.
+
+ \textbf{ The energy saving and performance degradation of all benchmarks are plotted to the number of
+nodes as in plots (\ref{fig:energy} and \ref{fig:per_deg}). As shown in the plots, the energy saving percentage of the benchmarks MG, LU, BT and FT is decreased linearly when the the number of nodes increased. While in EP benchmark the energy saving percentage is approximately the same percentage when the number of computing nodes is increased, because in this benchmark there is no communications. In the SP benchmark the energy saving percentage is decreased when it runs on a small number of nodes, while this percentage is increased when it runs on a big number of nodes. The energy saving of the GC benchmarks is significantly decreased when the number of nodes is increased, because this benchmark has more communications compared to other benchmarks. The performance degradation percentage of the benchmarks CG, EP, LU and BT is decreased when they run on a big number of nodes. While in MG benchmark has a higher percentage of performance degradation when it runs on a big number of nodes. The inverse happen in SP benchmark has smaller performance degradation percentage when it runs on a big number of nodes.}
+
\subsection{The results for different power consumption scenarios}
-The results of the previous section are obtained using a percentage of 80\% for
-dynamic power and 20\% for static power of the total power consumption of a CPU. In this
-section we are change these ratio by using two others power scenarios. Because is
-interested to measure the ability of the proposed algorithm when these power ratios are changed.
-In fact, we are used two different scenarios for dynamic and static power ratios in addition to the previous
-scenario in section (\ref{sec.res}). Therefore, we have three different
-scenarios for three different dynamic and static power ratios refer to these as:
-70\%-20\%, 80\%-20\% and 90\%-10\% scenario respectively. The results of these scenarios
-running the NAS benchmarks class C on 8 or 9 nodes are place in the tables
-(\ref{table:res_s1} and \ref{table:res_s2}).
+The results of the previous section were obtained while using processors that consume during computation an overall power which is 80\% composed of dynamic power and 20\% of static power. In this
+section, these ratios are changed and two new power scenarios are considered in order to evaluate how the proposed algorithm adapts itself according to the static and dynamic power values. The two new power scenarios are the following:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item 70\% dynamic power and 30\% static power
+\item 90\% dynamic power and 10\% static power
+\end{itemize}
+The NAS parallel benchmarks were executed again over processors that follow the the new power scenarios. The class C of each benchmark was run over 8 or 9 nodes and the results are presented in tables (\ref{table:res_s1} and \ref{table:res_s2}). \textbf{These tables show that the energy saving percentage of the 70\%-30\% scenario is less for all benchmarks compared to the energy saving of the 90\%-10\% scenario, because this scenario uses higher percentage of dynamic dynamic power that is quadratically related to scaling factors. While the performance degradation percentage is less in 70\%-30\% scenario compared to 90\%-10\% scenario, because the first scenario used higher percentage for static power consumption that is linearly related to scaling factors and thus the execution time. }
+
+The two new power scenarios are compared to the old one in figure (\ref{fig:sen_comp}). It shows the average of the performance degradation, the energy saving and the distances for all NAS benchmarks of class C running on 8 or 9 nodes. The comparison shows that the energy saving ratio is proportional to the dynamic power ratio: it is increased when applying the 90\%-10\% scenario because at maximum frequency the dynamic energy is the the most relevant in the overall consumed energy and can be reduced by lowering the frequency of some processors. On the other hand, the energy saving is decreased when the 70\%-30\% scenario is used because the dynamic energy is less relevant in the overall consumed energy and lowering the frequency do not returns big energy savings.
+Moreover, the average of the performance degradation is decreased when using a higher ratio for static power (e.g. 70\%-30\% scenario and 80\%-20\% scenario). Since the proposed algorithm optimizes the energy consumption when using a higher ratio for dynamic power the algorithm selects bigger frequency scaling factors that result in more energy saving but less performance, for example see the figure (\ref{fig:scales_comp}). The opposite happens when using a higher ratio for static power, the algorithm proportionally selects smaller scaling values which results in less energy saving but less performance degradation.
+
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{The results of 70\%-30\% powers scenario}
\subfloat[Comparison the average of the results on 8 nodes]{%
\includegraphics[width=.22\textwidth]{fig/sen_comp}\label{fig:sen_comp}}%
\quad%
- \subfloat[Comparison the selected frequency scaling factors for 8 nodes]{%
+ \subfloat[Comparison the selected frequency scaling factors of MG benchmark class C running on 8 nodes]{%
\includegraphics[width=.24\textwidth]{fig/three_scenarios}\label{fig:scales_comp}}
\label{fig:comp}
\caption{The comparison of the three power scenarios}
-\end{figure}
+\end{figure}
+
-To compare the results of these three powers scenarios, we are take the average of the performance degradation, the energy saving and the distances for all NAS benchmarks running on 8 or 9 nodes of class C, as in figure (\ref{fig:sen_comp}). Thus, according to the average of these results, the energy saving ratio is increased when using a higher percentage for dynamic power (e.g. 90\%-10\% scenario), due to increase in dynamic energy. While the average of energy saving is decreased in 70\%-30\% scenario. Because the static energy consumption is increase. Moreover, the average of distances is more related to energy saving changes. The average of the performance degradation is decreased when using a higher ratio for static power (e.g. 70\%-30\% scenario and 80\%-20\% scenario). The raison behind these relations, that the proposed algorithm optimize both energy consumption and performance in the same time. Therefore, when using a higher ratio for dynamic power the algorithm selecting bigger frequency scaling factors values, more energy saving versus more performance degradation, for example see the figure (\ref{fig:scales_comp}). The inverse happen when using a higher ratio for static power, the algorithm proportionally selects a smaller scaling values, less energy saving versus less performance degradation. This is because the
-algorithm is optimizes the static energy consumption that is always related to the execution time.
\subsection{The verifications of the proposed method}
\label{sec.verif}
-The precision of the proposed algorithm mainly depends on the execution time prediction model EQ(\ref{eq:perf}) and the energy model EQ(\ref{eq:energy}). The energy model is significantly depends on the execution time model, that the static energy is related linearly. So, our work is depends mainly on execution time model. To verifying thid model, we are compare the predicted execution time with the real execution time (Simgrid time) values that gathered offline from the NAS benchmarks class B executed on 8 or 9 nodes. The execution time model can predicts the real execution time by maximum normalized error equal to 0.03 for all the NAS benchmarks. The second verification that we are made is for the proposed scaling algorithm to prove its ability to selects the best vector of the frequency scaling factors. Therefore, we are expand the algorithm to test at each iteration the frequency scaling factor of the slowest node with the all available scaling factors of the other nodes, all possible solutions. This version of the algorithm is applied to different NAS benchmarks classes with different number of nodes. The results from the expanded algorithms and the proposed algorithm are identical. While the proposed algorithm is runs by 10 times faster on average compare to the expanded algorithm.
+The precision of the proposed algorithm mainly depends on the execution time prediction model defined in EQ(\ref{eq:perf}) and the energy model computed by EQ(\ref{eq:energy}).
+The energy model is also significantly dependent on the execution time model because the static energy is linearly related the execution time and the dynamic energy is related to the computation time. So, all of the work presented in this paper is based on the execution time model. To verify this model, the predicted execution time was compared to the real execution time over Simgrid for all the NAS parallel benchmarks running class B on 8 or 9 nodes. The comparison showed that the proposed execution time model is very precise, the maximum normalized difference between the predicted execution time and the real execution time is equal to 0.03 for all the NAS benchmarks.
+
+Since the proposed algorithm is not an exact method and do not test all the possible solutions (vectors of scaling factors) in the search space and to prove its efficiency, it was compared on small instances to a brute force search algorithm that tests all the possible solutions. The brute force algorithm was applied to different NAS benchmarks classes with different number of nodes. The solutions returned by the brute force algorithm and the proposed algorithm were identical and the proposed algorithm was on average 10 times faster than the brute force algorithm. It has a small
+execution time: for a heterogeneous cluster composed of four different types of nodes having the characteristics presented in table~(\ref{table:platform}), it
+takes on average \np[ms]{0.04} for 4 nodes and \np[ms]{0.15} on average for 144 nodes to compute the best scaling factors vector. The algorithm complexity is $O(F\cdot (N \cdot4) )$, where $F$ is the number of iterations and $N$ is the number of computing nodes. The algorithm
+needs from 12 to 20 iterations to select the best vector of frequency scaling factors that gives the results of the section (\ref{sec.res}).
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec.concl}
