\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
(\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.
-\textbf{modify the characteristics table by replacing the similar column with the computing power of the different types of nodes in flops}
-
-
- The proposed scaling 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 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 next section.
-
\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}
\label{sec.res}
-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 and FT should be executed on $2^1, 2^2, 2^4 or 2^8$ nodes. The other benchmarks such as BT and SP should be executed on $2^1, 2^2, 2^4 or 2^9$ nodes.
-\textbf{there must be an error in the number of nodes }
+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]
\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}
- 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
-benchmark such as the computations to communications ratio that has.
-
-\textbf{All the previous paragraph should be deleted, we need to talk about it}
+ \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}). A 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 benchmarks the energy saving percentage is approximately the same percentage when the number of computing nodes is increased, because in this benchmarks there is no communications. In the SP benchmarks the energy saving percentage is decreased when it run 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 benchmarks 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 benchmarks has a higher percentage of performance degradation when it runs on a big number of nodes. The inverse happen in SP benchmarks 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 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
\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{should explain the tables more}
+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.
\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}
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.
-\textbf{should put the paragraph about the overhead here}
+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}
