From: jean-claude Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:39:04 +0000 (+0100) Subject: corrected the rest of the paper, I have put some comments in bold, please check them out X-Git-Tag: pdsec15_submission~84 X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/mpi-energy2.git/commitdiff_plain/12334c0cc5e73de7a7a3c186b7bbbcd814f922af?hp=--cc corrected the rest of the paper, I have put some comments in bold, please check them out --- 12334c0cc5e73de7a7a3c186b7bbbcd814f922af diff --git a/Heter_paper.tex b/Heter_paper.tex index 024cc29..c77212a 100644 --- a/Heter_paper.tex +++ b/Heter_paper.tex @@ -469,9 +469,9 @@ needs from 12 to 20 iterations to select the best vector of frequency scaling f \subsection{The experimental results of the scaling algorithm} \label{sec.res} -<<<<<<< HEAD -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. +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 } \begin{table}[htb] @@ -636,8 +636,10 @@ The proposed algorithm was applied to the seven parallel NAS benchmarks (EP, CG, \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}). -These 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 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. @@ -653,12 +655,8 @@ The maximum distance between the normalized energy curve and the normalized perf \caption{The average of 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 + + 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 @@ -670,18 +668,20 @@ 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} \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{should explain the tables more} + +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} @@ -751,13 +751,15 @@ running the NAS benchmarks class C on 8 or 9 nodes are place in the tables \caption{The comparison of the three power scenarios} \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 this model, we are compared 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. +\textbf{should put the paragraph about the overhead here} \section{Conclusion} \label{sec.concl}