RCE : Point decimal sur les graphiques

[rce2015.git] / paper.tex

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index ca1749c8a82b6573e2ed70ecb5bb678e5f687da8..1391f0f3c275a4e255b7f2746bcf65a5fa08b703 100644 (file)
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ is (see the output results obtained from configurations 2$\times$16 vs. 4$\times
 
 The execution times between both algorithms is significant with different grid architectures. The synchronous Krylov two-stage algorithm presents better performances than the GMRES algorithm, even for a high number of clusters (about $32\%$ more efficient on a grid of 8$\times$8 than GMRES). In addition, we can observe a better sensitivity of the Krylov two-stage algorithm (compared to the GMRES one) when scaling up the number of the processors in the computational grid: the Krylov two-stage algorithm is about $48\%$ and the GMRES algorithm is about $40\%$ better on 64 processors (grid of 8$\times$8) than 32 processors (grid of 2$\times$16). 
 
 
 The execution times between both algorithms is significant with different grid architectures. The synchronous Krylov two-stage algorithm presents better performances than the GMRES algorithm, even for a high number of clusters (about $32\%$ more efficient on a grid of 8$\times$8 than GMRES). In addition, we can observe a better sensitivity of the Krylov two-stage algorithm (compared to the GMRES one) when scaling up the number of the processors in the computational grid: the Krylov two-stage algorithm is about $48\%$ and the GMRES algorithm is about $40\%$ better on 64 processors (grid of 8$\times$8) than 32 processors (grid of 2$\times$16). 
 

-\begin{figure}[t]
+\begin{figure}[ht]

 \begin{center}
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_nx_150_and_nx_170.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \begin{center}
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_nx_150_and_nx_170.pdf}
 \end{center}


@@ -583,150 +583,64 @@ sensitive to bad network bandwidth and latency for the inter-clusters links than
 the  GMRES algorithms.  This  means  that the  multisplitting  methods are  more
 efficient for distributed systems with high latency networks.
 
 the  GMRES algorithms.  This  means  that the  multisplitting  methods are  more
 efficient for distributed systems with high latency networks.
 

-\begin{figure}[t]
+\begin{figure}[ht]

 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_n1_x_n2.pdf}
 \caption{Various grid configurations with networks $N1$ vs. $N2$}
 \LZK{CE, remplacer les ``,'' des décimales par un ``.''}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_n1_x_n2.pdf}
 \caption{Various grid configurations with networks $N1$ vs. $N2$}
 \LZK{CE, remplacer les ``,'' des décimales par un ``.''}

+\RCE{ok}

 \label{fig:02}
 \end{figure}
 
 \label{fig:02}
 \end{figure}
 

-\subsubsection{Network latency impacts on performance\\}
+\subsubsection{Network latency impacts on performances\\}

 Figure~\ref{fig:03} shows the impact of the network latency on the performances of both algorithms. The simulation is conducted on a computational grid of 2 clusters of 16 processors each (i.e. configuration 2$\times$16) interconnected by a network of bandwidth $bw$=1Gbs to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$. According to the results, a degradation of the network latency from $8\mu$s to $60\mu$s implies an absolute execution time increase for both algorithms, but not with the same rate of degradation. The GMRES algorithm is more sensitive to the latency degradation than the Krylov two-stage algorithm. 
 
 Figure~\ref{fig:03} shows the impact of the network latency on the performances of both algorithms. The simulation is conducted on a computational grid of 2 clusters of 16 processors each (i.e. configuration 2$\times$16) interconnected by a network of bandwidth $bw$=1Gbs to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$. According to the results, a degradation of the network latency from $8\mu$s to $60\mu$s implies an absolute execution time increase for both algorithms, but not with the same rate of degradation. The GMRES algorithm is more sensitive to the latency degradation than the Krylov two-stage algorithm. 
 

-\begin{figure}[t]
+\begin{figure}[ht]

 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{network_latency_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{network_latency_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}

-\caption{Network latency impacts on execution times}
+\caption{Network latency impacts on performances}

 \label{fig:03}
 \end{figure}
 
 \label{fig:03}
 \end{figure}
 

-\subsubsection{Network bandwidth impacts on performance\\}
+\subsubsection{Network bandwidth impacts on performances\\}

 Figure~\ref{fig:04} reports the results obtained for the simulation of a grid of 2$\times$16 processors interconnected by a network of latency $lat=50\mu$s to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$. The results of increasing the network bandwidth from 1Gbs to 10Gbs show the performances improvement for both algorithms by reducing the execution times. However, the Krylov two-stage algorithm presents a better performance in the considered bandwidth interval with a gain of $40\%$ compared to only about $24\%$ for the classical GMRES algorithm.
 
 Figure~\ref{fig:04} reports the results obtained for the simulation of a grid of 2$\times$16 processors interconnected by a network of latency $lat=50\mu$s to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$. The results of increasing the network bandwidth from 1Gbs to 10Gbs show the performances improvement for both algorithms by reducing the execution times. However, the Krylov two-stage algorithm presents a better performance in the considered bandwidth interval with a gain of $40\%$ compared to only about $24\%$ for the classical GMRES algorithm.
 

-\begin{figure}[t]
+\begin{figure}[ht]

 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{network_bandwith_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{network_bandwith_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}

-\caption{Network bandwith impacts on execution time}
+\caption{Network bandwith impacts on performances}

 \label{fig:04}
 \end{figure}
 
 \label{fig:04}
 \end{figure}
 

+\subsubsection{Matrix size impacts on performances\\}
+In these experiments, the matrix size of the 3D Poisson problem is varied from $50^3$ to $190^3$ elements. The simulated computational grid is composed of 4 clusters of 8 processors each interconnected by the network $N2$ (see Table~\ref{tab:01}). Obviously, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:05}, the execution times for both algorithms increase with increased matrix sizes.  For all problem sizes, GMRES algorithm is always slower than the Krylov two-stage algorithm. Moreover, for this benchmark, it seems that the greater the problem size is, the bigger the ratio between execution times of both algorithms is. We can also observe that for some problem sizes, the convergence (and thus the execution time) of the Krylov two-stage algorithm varies quite a lot. %This is due to the 3D partitioning of the 3D matrix of the Poisson problem. 
+These findings may help a lot end users to setup the best and the optimal targeted environment for the application deployment when focusing on the problem size scale up. 

 
 

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-\subsubsection{Input matrix size impacts on performance\\}
-
-\begin{table} [ht!]
-\centering
-\begin{tabular}{r c }
- \hline
- Grid Architecture & 4 $\times$ 8\\ %\hline
- Inter Network & $bw$=1Gbs - $lat$=5.10$^{-5}$ \\
- Input matrix size & $N_{x} \times N_{y} \times N_{z}$ = From 50$^{3}$ to 190$^{3}$\\ \hline
- \end{tabular}
-\caption{Test conditions: Input matrix size impacts}
-\label{tab:05}
-\end{table}
-
-
-\begin{figure} [htbp]
+\begin{figure}[ht]

 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{pb_size_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{pb_size_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}

-\caption{Problem size impacts on execution time}
+\caption{Problem size impacts on performances}

 \label{fig:05}
 \end{figure}
 
 \label{fig:05}
 \end{figure}
 

-In  these  experiments, the  input  matrix  size has  been  set  from $50^3$  to
-$190^3$. Obviously, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:05}, the execution time for both
-algorithms increases when the input matrix size also increases.  For all problem
-sizes, GMRES is always slower than the Krylov multisplitting. Moreover, for this
-benchmark, it seems that  the greater the problem size is,  the bigger the ratio
-between both  algorithm execution  times is.  We can also  observ that  for some
-problem   sizes,  the   Krylov   multisplitting  convergence   varies  quite   a
-lot. Consequently the execution times in that cases also varies.
-
-
-These  findings may  help a  lot end  users to  setup the  best and  the optimal
-targeted environment for the application deployment when focusing on the problem
-size scale up.  It  should be noticed that the same test has  been done with the
-grid 4 $\times$ 8 leading to the same conclusion.
-
-\subsubsection{CPU Power impacts on performance\\}
-
+\subsubsection{CPU power impacts on performances\\}
+Using the SimGrid simulator flexibility, we have tried to determine the impact of the CPU power of the processors in the different clusters on performances of both algorithms. We have varied the CPU power from $1$GFlops to $19$GFlops. The simulation is conducted in a grid of 2$\times$16 processors interconnected by the network $N2$ (see Table~\ref{tab:01}) to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$. The results depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:06} confirm the performance gain, about $95\%$ for both algorithms, after improving the CPU power of processors.

 
 

-\begin{table} [htbp]
-\centering
-\begin{tabular}{r c }
- \hline
- Grid architecture & 2 $\times$ 16\\ %\hline
- Inter Network & N2 : $bw$=1Gbs - $lat$=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
- Input matrix size & $N_{x} = 150 \times 150 \times 150$\\ 
- CPU Power & From 3 to 19 GFlops \\ \hline
- \end{tabular}
-\caption{Test conditions: CPU Power impacts}
-\label{tab:06}
-\end{table}
-
-\begin{figure} [ht!]
+\begin{figure}[ht]

 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{cpu_power_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=100mm]{cpu_power_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}

-\caption{CPU Power impacts on execution time}
+\caption{CPU Power impacts on performances}

 \label{fig:06}
 \end{figure}
 \label{fig:06}
 \end{figure}

-
-Using the Simgrid  simulator flexibility, we have tried to  determine the impact
-on the  algorithms performance in  varying the CPU  power of the  clusters nodes
-from $1$ to $19$ GFlops.  The outputs  depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:06}  confirm the
-performance gain,  around $95\%$ for  both of the  two methods, after  adding more
-powerful CPU.

 \ \\
 \ \\

-%\DL{il faut une conclusion sur ces tests : ils confirment les résultats déjà
-%obtenus en grandeur réelle. Donc c'est une aide précieuse pour les dev. Pas
-%besoin de déployer sur une archi réelle}
-

 To conclude these series of experiments, with  SimGrid we have been able to make
 many simulations  with many parameters  variations. Doing all  these experiments
 with a real platform is most of  the time not possible. Moreover the behavior of
 To conclude these series of experiments, with  SimGrid we have been able to make
 many simulations  with many parameters  variations. Doing all  these experiments
 with a real platform is most of  the time not possible. Moreover the behavior of

-both GMRES and  Krylov multisplitting methods is in accordance  with larger real
-executions on large scale supercomputer~\cite{couturier15}.
+both GMRES and  Krylov two-stage algorithms is in accordance  with larger real
+executions on large scale supercomputers~\cite{couturier15}.

 
 
 
 

-\subsection{Comparing GMRES in native synchronous mode and the multisplitting algorithm in asynchronous mode}
+\subsection{Comparison between synchronous GMRES and asynchronous two-stage multisplitting algorithms}

 
 The previous paragraphs  put in evidence the interests to  simulate the behavior
 of  the application  before  any  deployment in  a  real  environment.  In  this
 
 The previous paragraphs  put in evidence the interests to  simulate the behavior
 of  the application  before  any  deployment in  a  real  environment.  In  this


@@ -741,42 +655,34 @@ synchronization  with   the  other   processors.  Thus,  the   asynchronous  may
 theoretically reduce  the overall execution  time and can improve  the algorithm
 performance.
 
 theoretically reduce  the overall execution  time and can improve  the algorithm
 performance.
 

-In this section,  the Simgrid simulator is  used to compare the  behavior of the
-multisplitting in  asynchronous mode  with GMRES  in synchronous  mode.  Several
-benchmarks have  been performed with  various combination of the  grid resources
-(CPU, Network, input  matrix size, \ldots ). The test  conditions are summarized
-in  Table~\ref{tab:07}. In  order to  compare  the execution  times, this  table
+In this section,  the SimGrid simulator is  used to compare the  behavior of the
+two-stage algorithm in  asynchronous mode  with GMRES  in synchronous  mode.  Several
+benchmarks have  been performed with  various combinations of the  grid resources
+(CPU, Network, matrix size, \ldots). The test  conditions are summarized
+in  Table~\ref{tab:02}. In  order to  compare  the execution  times, Table~\ref{tab:03}

 reports the  relative gain between both  algorithms. It is defined  by the ratio
 between  the   execution  time  of   GMRES  and   the  execution  time   of  the
 reports the  relative gain between both  algorithms. It is defined  by the ratio
 between  the   execution  time  of   GMRES  and   the  execution  time   of  the

-multisplitting.  The  ratio  is  greater  than  one  because  the  asynchronous
+multisplitting.  
+\LZK{Quelle table repporte les gains relatifs?? Sûrement pas Table II !!}
+\RCE{Table III avec la nouvelle numerotation}
+The  ratio  is  greater  than  one  because  the  asynchronous

 multisplitting version is faster than GMRES.
 
 multisplitting version is faster than GMRES.
 

-
-
-\begin{table} [htbp]
+\begin{table}[htbp]

 \centering
 \centering

-\begin{tabular}{r c }
+\begin{tabular}{ll}

  \hline
  \hline

- Grid Architecture & 2 $\times$ 50 totaling 100 processors\\ %\hline
- Processors Power & 1 GFlops to 1.5 GFlops\\
-   Intra-Network & bw=1.25 Gbits - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
-   Inter-Network & bw=5 Mbits - lat=2.10$^{-2}$\\
- Input matrix size & $N_{x}$ = From 62 to 150\\ %\hline
- Residual error precision & 10$^{-5}$ to 10$^{-9}$\\ \hline \\
+ Grid architecture                       & 2$\times$50 totaling 100 processors\\
+ Processors Power                        & 1 GFlops to 1.5 GFlops \\
+ \multirow{2}{*}{Network inter-clusters} & $bw$=1.25 Gbits, $lat=50\mu$s \\
+                                         & $bw$=5 Mbits, $lat=20ms$s\\
+ Matrix size                             & from $62^3$ to $150^3$\\
+ Residual error precision                & $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-9}$\\ \hline \\

  \end{tabular}
  \end{tabular}

-\caption{Test conditions: GMRES in synchronous mode vs Krylov Multisplitting in asynchronous mode}
-\label{tab:07}
+\caption{Test conditions: GMRES in synchronous mode vs. Krylov two-stage in asynchronous mode}
+\label{tab:02}

 \end{table}
 
 \end{table}
 

-Again,  comprehensive and  extensive tests  have been  conducted with  different
-parameters as  the CPU power, the  network parameters (bandwidth and  latency)
-and with different problem size. The  relative gains greater than $1$  between the
-two algorithms have  been captured after  each step  of the test.   In
-Table~\ref{tab:08}  are  reported the  best  grid  configurations allowing
-the  multisplitting method to  be more than  $2.5$ times faster  than the
-classical  GMRES.  These  experiments also  show the  relative tolerance  of the
-multisplitting algorithm when using a low speed network as usually observed with
-geographically distant clusters through the internet.

 
 % use the same column width for the following three tables
 \newlength{\mytablew}\settowidth{\mytablew}{\footnotesize\np{E-11}}
 
 % use the same column width for the following three tables
 \newlength{\mytablew}\settowidth{\mytablew}{\footnotesize\np{E-11}}


@@ -814,15 +720,24 @@ geographically distant clusters through the internet.
     \hline
   \end{mytable}
 %\end{table}
     \hline
   \end{mytable}
 %\end{table}

- \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared with the classical GMRES}
- \label{tab:08}
+ \caption{Relative gains of the two-stage multisplitting algorithm compared with the classical GMRES}
+ \label{tab:03}

 \end{table}
 
 \end{table}
 

+Again,  comprehensive and  extensive tests  have been  conducted with  different
+parameters as  the CPU power, the  network parameters (bandwidth and  latency)
+and with different problem size. The  relative gains greater than $1$  between the
+two algorithms have  been captured after  each step  of the test.   In
+Table~\ref{tab:08}  are  reported the  best  grid  configurations allowing
+the  two-stage multisplitting algorithm to  be more than  $2.5$ times faster  than the
+classical  GMRES.  These  experiments also  show the  relative tolerance  of the
+multisplitting algorithm when using a low speed network as usually observed with
+geographically distant clusters through the internet.

 
 

-\section{Conclusion}

 
 

+\section{Conclusion}

 In this paper we have presented the simulation of the execution of three
 In this paper we have presented the simulation of the execution of three

-different parallel solvers on some multi-core architectures. We have show that
+different parallel solvers on some multi-core architectures. We have shown that

 the SimGrid toolkit is an interesting simulation tool that has allowed us to
 determine  which method  to choose  given a  specified multi-core  architecture.
 Moreover the simulated results are in accordance (i.e. with the same order of
 the SimGrid toolkit is an interesting simulation tool that has allowed us to
 determine  which method  to choose  given a  specified multi-core  architecture.
 Moreover the simulated results are in accordance (i.e. with the same order of


@@ -844,7 +759,7 @@ converge and so to very different execution times.
 In future works, we  plan to investigate how to simulate  the behavior of really
 large scale  applications. For  example, if  we are  interested to  simulate the
 execution of the solvers of this paper with thousand or even dozens of thousands
 In future works, we  plan to investigate how to simulate  the behavior of really
 large scale  applications. For  example, if  we are  interested to  simulate the
 execution of the solvers of this paper with thousand or even dozens of thousands

-or core,  it is not possible  to do that with  SimGrid. In fact, this  tool will
+of cores,  it is not possible  to do that with  SimGrid. In fact, this  tool will

 make the real computation. So we plan to focus our research on that problematic.
 
 
 make the real computation. So we plan to focus our research on that problematic.