\usepackage{algpseudocode}
%\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{graphicx}
-\usepackage[american]{babel}
% Extension pour les liens intra-documents (tagged PDF)
% et l'affichage correct des URL (commande \url{http://example.com})
%\usepackage{hyperref}
\todo[color=blue!10,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{LZK:} #2}\xspace}
\newcommand{\RCE}[2][inline]{%
\todo[color=yellow!10,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{RCE:} #2}\xspace}
+\newcommand{\DL}[2][inline]{%
+ \todo[color=pink!10,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{DL:} #2}\xspace}
\algnewcommand\algorithmicinput{\textbf{Input:}}
\algnewcommand\Input{\item[\algorithmicinput]}
analysis of simulated grid-enabled numerical iterative algorithms}
%\itshape{\journalnamelc}\footnotemark[2]}
-\author{ Charles Emile Ramamonjisoa and
- David Laiymani and
- Arnaud Giersch and
- Lilia Ziane Khodja and
- Raphaël Couturier
+\author{Charles Emile Ramamonjisoa\affil{1},
+ David Laiymani\affil{1},
+ Arnaud Giersch\affil{1},
+ Lilia Ziane Khodja\affil{2} and
+ Raphaël Couturier\affil{1}
}
\address{
- \centering
- Femto-ST Institute - DISC Department\\
- Université de Franche-Comté\\
- Belfort\\
- Email: \email{{raphael.couturier,arnaud.giersch,david.laiymani,charles.ramamonjisoa}@univ-fcomte.fr}
+ \affilnum{1}%
+ Femto-ST Institute, DISC Department,
+ University of Franche-Comté,
+ Belfort, France.
+ Email:~\email{{charles.ramamonjisoa,david.laiymani,arnaud.giersch,raphael.couturier}@univ-fcomte.fr}\break
+ \affilnum{2}
+ Department of Aerospace \& Mechanical Engineering,
+ Non Linear Computational Mechanics,
+ University of Liege, Liege, Belgium.
+ Email:~\email{l.zianekhodja@ulg.ac.be}
}
-%% Lilia Ziane Khodja: Department of Aerospace \& Mechanical Engineering\\ Non Linear Computational Mechanics\\ University of Liege\\ Liege, Belgium. Email: l.zianekhodja@ulg.ac.be
-
\begin{abstract} The behavior of multi-core applications is always a challenge
to predict, especially with a new architecture for which no experiment has been
performed. With some applications, it is difficult, if not impossible, to build
accurate performance models. That is why another solution is to use a simulation
tool which allows us to change many parameters of the architecture (network
bandwidth, latency, number of processors) and to simulate the execution of such
-applications. We have decided to use SimGrid as it enables to benchmark MPI
-applications.
+applications. The main contribution of this paper is to show that the use of a
+simulation tool (here we have decided to use the SimGrid toolkit) can really
+help developpers to better tune their applications for a given multi-core
+architecture.
-In this paper, we focus our attention on two parallel iterative algorithms based
+In particular we focus our attention on two parallel iterative algorithms based
on the Multisplitting algorithm and we compare them to the GMRES algorithm.
-These algorithms are used to solve libear systems. Two different variants of
+These algorithms are used to solve linear systems. Two different variants of
the Multisplitting are studied: one using synchronoous iterations and another
-one with asynchronous iterations. For each algorithm we have tested different
-parameters to see their influence. We strongly recommend people interested
-by investing into a new expensive hardware architecture to benchmark
-their applications using a simulation tool before.
-
-
-
+one with asynchronous iterations. For each algorithm we have simulated
+different architecture parameters to evaluate their influence on the overall
+execution time. The obtain simulated results confirm the real results
+previously obtained on different real multi-core architectures and also confirm
+the efficiency of the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm compared to the
+synchronous GMRES method.
\end{abstract}
given application for a given architecture. In this way and in order to reduce
the access cost to these computing resources it seems very interesting to use a
simulation environment. The advantages are numerous: development life cycle,
-code debugging, ability to obtain results quickly~\ldots. In counterpart, the simulation results need to be consistent with the real ones.
+code debugging, ability to obtain results quickly\dots{} In counterpart, the simulation results need to be consistent with the real ones.
In this paper we focus on a class of highly efficient parallel algorithms called
\emph{iterative algorithms}. The parallel scheme of iterative methods is quite
allocations policies under varying CPU power, network speeds and loads is very
challenging and labor intensive~\cite{Calheiros:2011:CTM:1951445.1951450}. This
problematic is even more difficult for the asynchronous scheme where a small
-parameter variation of the execution platform can lead to very different numbers
-of iterations to reach the converge and so to very different execution times. In
-this challenging context we think that the use of a simulation tool can greatly
-leverage the possibility of testing various platform scenarios.
+parameter variation of the execution platform and of the application data can
+lead to very different numbers of iterations to reach the converge and so to
+very different execution times. In this challenging context we think that the
+use of a simulation tool can greatly leverage the possibility of testing various
+platform scenarios.
The main contribution of this paper is to show that the use of a simulation tool
(i.e. the SimGrid toolkit~\cite{SimGrid}) in the context of real parallel
tune their application for a given multi-core architecture. To show the validity
of this approach we first compare the simulated execution of the multisplitting
algorithm with the GMRES (Generalized Minimal Residual)
-solver~\cite{saad86} in synchronous mode. The obtained results on different
-simulated multi-core architectures confirm the real results previously obtained
-on non simulated architectures. We also confirm the efficiency of the
-asynchronous multisplitting algorithm compared to the synchronous GMRES. In
+solver~\cite{saad86} in synchronous mode. The simulation results allow us to
+determine which method to choose given a specified multi-core architecture.
+
+\LZK{Pas trop convainquant comme argument pour valider l'approche de simulation. \\On peut dire par exemple: on a pu simuler différents algos itératifs à large échelle (le plus connu GMRES et deux variantes de multisplitting) et la simulation nous a permis (sans avoir le vrai matériel) de déterminer quelle serait la meilleure solution pour une telle configuration de l'archi ou vice versa.\\A revoir...}
+\DL{OK : ajout d'une phrase précisant tout cela}
+
+Moreover the obtained results on different simulated multi-core architectures
+confirm the real results previously obtained on non simulated architectures.
+More precisely the simulated results are in accordance (i.e. with the same order
+of magnitude) with the works presented in [], which show that the synchronous
+multisplitting method is more efficient than GMRES for large scale clusters.
+
+\LZK{Il n y a pas dans la partie expé cette comparaison et confirmation des
+résultats entre la simulation et l'exécution réelle des algos sur les vrais
+clusters.\\ Sinon on pourrait ajouter dans la partie expé une référence vers le
+journal supercomput de krylov multi pour confirmer que cette méthode est
+meilleure que GMRES sur les clusters large échelle.} \DL{OK ajout d'une phrase.
+Par contre je n'ai pas la ref. Merci de la mettre}
+
+Simulated results also confirm the efficiency of the asynchronous
+multisplitting algorithm compared to the synchronous GMRES especially in case of
+geographically distant clusters.
+
+\LZK{P.S.: Pour tout le papier, le principal objectif n'est pas de faire des comparaisons entre des méthodes itératives!!\\Sinon, les deux algorithmes Krylov multisplitting synchrone et multisplitting asynchrone sont plus efficaces que GMRES sur des clusters à large échelle.\\Et préciser, si c'est vraiment le cas, que le multisplitting asynchrone est plus efficace et adapté aux clusters distants par rapport aux deux autres algos (je n'ai pas encore lu la partie expé)}
+\DL{Tu as raison on s'est posé la question de garder ou non cette partie des résultats. On a décidé de la garder pour avoir plus de chose à montrer. J'ai essayer de clarifier un peu}
+
+In
this way and with a simple computing architecture (a laptop) SimGrid allows us
to run a test campaign of a real parallel iterative applications on
different simulated multi-core architectures. To our knowledge, there is no
experimental results are presented in section~\ref{sec:expe} followed by some
concluding remarks and perspectives.
+\LZK{Proposition d'un titre pour le papier: Grid-enabled simulation of large-scale linear iterative solvers.}
+
-\section{The asynchronous iteration model}
+\section{The asynchronous iteration model and the motivations of our work}
\label{sec:asynchro}
Asynchronous iterative methods have been studied for many years theoritecally and
it must not synchronize all the processors. Interested readers can
consult~\cite{myBCCV05c,bahi07,ccl09:ij}.
+The number of iterations required to reach the convergence is generally greater
+for the asynchronous scheme (this number depends depends on the delay of the
+messages). Note that, it is not the case in the synchronous mode where the
+number of iterations is the same than in the sequential mode. In this way, the
+set of the parameters of the platform (number of nodes, power of nodes,
+inter and intra clusters bandwidth and latency, \ldots) and of the
+application can drastically change the number of iterations required to get the
+convergence. It follows that asynchronous iterative algorithms are difficult to
+optimize since the financial and deployment costs on large scale multi-core
+architecture are often very important. So, prior to delpoyment and tests it
+seems very promising to be able to simulate the behavior of asynchronous
+iterative algorithms. The problematic is then to show that the results produce
+by simulation are in accordance with reality i.e. of the same order of
+magnitude. To our knowledge, there is no study on this problematic.
+
\section{SimGrid}
- \label{sec:simgrid}
+\label{sec:simgrid}
+SimGrid~\cite{SimGrid,casanova+legrand+quinson.2008.simgrid,casanova+giersch+legrand+al.2014.versatile} is a discrete event simulation framework to study the behavior of large-scale distributed computing platforms as Grids, Peer-to-Peer systems, Clouds and High Performance Computation systems. It is widely used to simulate and evaluate heuristics, prototype applications or even assess legacy MPI applications. It is still actively developed by the scientific community and distributed as an open source software.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% SimGrid~\cite{SimGrid,casanova+legrand+quinson.2008.simgrid,casanova+giersch+legrand+al.2014.versatile}
+% is a simulation framework to study the behavior of large-scale distributed
+% systems. As its name suggests, it emanates from the grid computing community,
+% but is nowadays used to study grids, clouds, HPC or peer-to-peer systems. The
+% early versions of SimGrid date back from 1999, but it is still actively
+% developed and distributed as an open source software. Today, it is one of the
+% major generic tools in the field of simulation for large-scale distributed
+% systems.
+
+SimGrid provides several programming interfaces: MSG to simulate Concurrent
+Sequential Processes, SimDAG to simulate DAGs of (parallel) tasks, and SMPI to
+run real applications written in MPI~\cite{MPI}. Apart from the native C
+interface, SimGrid provides bindings for the C++, Java, Lua and Ruby programming
+languages. SMPI is the interface that has been used for the work described in
+this paper. The SMPI interface implements about \np[\%]{80} of the MPI 2.0
+standard~\cite{bedaride+degomme+genaud+al.2013.toward}, and supports
+applications written in C or Fortran, with little or no modifications (cf Section IV - paragraph B).
+
+Within SimGrid, the execution of a distributed application is simulated by a
+single process. The application code is really executed, but some operations,
+like communications, are intercepted, and their running time is computed
+according to the characteristics of the simulated execution platform. The
+description of this target platform is given as an input for the execution, by
+means of an XML file. It describes the properties of the platform, such as
+the computing nodes with their computing power, the interconnection links with
+their bandwidth and latency, and the routing strategy. The scheduling of the
+simulated processes, as well as the simulated running time of the application
+are computed according to these properties.
+
+To compute the durations of the operations in the simulated world, and to take
+into account resource sharing (e.g. bandwidth sharing between competing
+communications), SimGrid uses a fluid model. This allows users to run relatively fast
+simulations, while still keeping accurate
+results~\cite{bedaride+degomme+genaud+al.2013.toward,
+ velho+schnorr+casanova+al.2013.validity}. Moreover, depending on the
+simulated application, SimGrid/SMPI allows to skip long lasting computations and
+to only take their duration into account. When the real computations cannot be
+skipped, but the results are unimportant for the simulation results, it is
+also possible to share dynamically allocated data structures between
+several simulated processes, and thus to reduce the whole memory consumption.
+These two techniques can help to run simulations on a very large scale.
+
+The validity of simulations with SimGrid has been asserted by several studies.
+See, for example, \cite{velho+schnorr+casanova+al.2013.validity} and articles
+referenced therein for the validity of the network models. Comparisons between
+real execution of MPI applications on the one hand, and their simulation with
+SMPI on the other hand, are presented in~\cite{guermouche+renard.2010.first,
+ clauss+stillwell+genaud+al.2011.single,
+ bedaride+degomme+genaud+al.2013.toward}. All these works conclude that
+SimGrid is able to simulate pretty accurately the real behavior of the
+applications.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Two-stage multisplitting methods}
In addition, the following arguments are given to the programs at runtime:
\begin{itemize}
- \item maximum number of inner and outer iterations;
- \item inner and outer precisions;
- \item maximum number of the GMRES restarts in the Arnorldi process;
- \item maximum number of iterations and the tolerance threshold in classical GMRES;
- \item tolerance threshold for outer and inner-iterations;
- \item matrix size (N$_{x}$, N$_{y}$ and N$_{z}$) respectively on $x, y, z$ axis;
- \item matrix diagonal value is fixed to $6.0$ for synchronous Krylov multisplitting experiments and $6.2$ for asynchronous block Jacobi experiments; \RC{CE tu vérifies, je dis ca de tête}
- \item matrix off-diagonal value;
- \item execution mode: synchronous or asynchronous;
- \RCE {C'est ok la liste des arguments du programme mais si Lilia ou toi pouvez preciser pour les arguments pour CGLS ci dessous} \RC{Vu que tu n'as pas fait varier ce paramètre, on peut ne pas en parler}
- \item Size of matrix S;
- \item Maximum number of iterations and tolerance threshold for CGLS.
+ \item maximum number of inner iterations $\MIG$ and outer iterations $\MIM$,
+ \item inner precision $\TOLG$ and outer precision $\TOLM$,
+ \item matrix sizes of the 3D Poisson problem: N$_{x}$, N$_{y}$ and N$_{z}$ on axis $x$, $y$ and $z$ respectively,
+ \item matrix diagonal value is fixed to $6.0$ for synchronous Krylov multisplitting experiments and $6.2$ for asynchronous block Jacobi experiments,
+ \item matrix off-diagonal value is fixed to $-1.0$,
+ \item number of vectors in matrix $S$ (i.e. value of $s$),
+ \item maximum number of iterations $\MIC$ and precision $\TOLC$ for CGLS method,
+ \item maximum number of iterations and precision for the classical GMRES method,
+ \item maximum number of restarts for the Arnorldi process in GMRES method,
+ \item execution mode: synchronous or asynchronous.
\end{itemize}
It should also be noticed that both solvers have been executed with the Simgrid selector \texttt{-cfg=smpi/running\_power} which determines the computational power (here 19GFlops) of the simulator host machine.
In the parallel context, the 3D Poisson problem is partitioned into $L\times p$ sub-problems such that $L$ is the number of clusters and $p$ is the number of processors in each cluster. We apply the three-dimensional partitioning instead of the row-by-row one in order to reduce the size of the data shared at the sub-problems boundaries. In this case, each processor is in charge of parallelepipedic block of the problem and has at most six neighbors in the same cluster or in distant clusters with which it shares data at boundaries.
-\subsection{Study setup and Simulation Methodology}
+\subsection{Study setup and simulation methodology}
First, to conduct our study, we propose the following methodology
which can be reused for any grid-enabled applications.\\
the application to be tested. Numerical parallel iterative algorithms
have been chosen for the study in this paper. \\
-\textbf{Step 2}: Collect the software materials needed for the
-experimentation. In our case, we have two variants algorithms for the
-resolution of the 3D-Poisson problem: (1) using the classical GMRES; (2) and the Multisplitting method. In addition, the Simgrid simulator has been chosen to simulate the behaviors of the
-distributed applications. Simgrid is running on the Mesocentre datacenter in the University of Franche-Comte and also in a virtual machine on a simple laptop. \\
+\textbf{Step 2}: Collect the software materials needed for the experimentation.
+In our case, we have two variants algorithms for the resolution of the
+3D-Poisson problem: (1) using the classical GMRES; (2) and the Multisplitting
+method. In addition, the Simgrid simulator has been chosen to simulate the
+behaviors of the distributed applications. Simgrid is running in a virtual
+machine on a simple laptop. \\
\textbf{Step 3}: Fix the criteria which will be used for the future
results comparison and analysis. In the scope of this study, we retain
a grid environment}
When running a distributed application in a computational grid, many factors may
-have a strong impact on the performances. First of all, the architecture of the
+have a strong impact on the performance. First of all, the architecture of the
grid itself can obviously influence the performance results of the program. The
performance gain might be important theoretically when the number of clusters
and/or the number of nodes (processors/cores) in each individual cluster
increase.
-Another important factor impacting the overall performances of the application
+Another important factor impacting the overall performance of the application
is the network configuration. Two main network parameters can modify drastically
the program output results:
\begin{enumerate}
capacity" of the network is defined as the maximum of data that can transit
from one point to another in a unit of time.
\item the network latency (lat : microsecond) defined as the delay from the
- start time to send the data from a source and the final time the destination
- have finished to receive it.
+ start time to send a simple data from a source to a destination.
\end{enumerate}
-Upon the network characteristics, another impacting factor is the
-application dependent volume of data exchanged between the nodes in the cluster
-and between distant clusters. Large volume of data can be transferred and
-transit between the clusters and nodes during the code execution.
+Upon the network characteristics, another impacting factor is the volume of data exchanged between the nodes in the cluster
+and between distant clusters. This parameter is application dependent.
In a grid environment, it is common to distinguish, on the one hand, the
- "intra-network" which refers to the links between nodes within a cluster and,
+ "intra-network" which refers to the links between nodes within a cluster and
on the other hand, the "inter-network" which is the backbone link between
- clusters. In practice, these two networks have different speeds. The
- intra-network generally works like a high speed local network with a high
- bandwith and very low latency. In opposite, the inter-network connects clusters
- sometime via heterogeneous networks components throuth internet with a lower
- speed. The network between distant clusters might be a bottleneck for the
- global performance of the application.
+ clusters. In practice, these two networks have different speeds.
+ The intra-network generally works like a high speed local network with a
+ high bandwith and very low latency. In opposite, the inter-network connects
+ clusters sometime via heterogeneous networks components throuth internet with
+ a lower speed. The network between distant clusters might be a bottleneck
+ for the global performance of the application.
\subsection{Comparison of GMRES and Krylov Multisplitting algorithms in synchronous mode}
In the scope of this paper, our first objective is to analyze when the Krylov
-Multisplitting method has better performances than the classical GMRES
-method. With an iterative method, better performances mean a smaller number of
-iterations and execution time before reaching the convergence. For a systematic
-study, the experiments should figure out that, for various grid parameters
-values, the simulator will confirm the targeted outcomes, particularly for poor
-and slow networks, focusing on the impact on the communication performance on
-the chosen class of algorithm.
+Multisplitting method has better performance than the classical GMRES
+method. With a synchronous iterative method, better performance means a
+smaller number of iterations and execution time before reaching the convergence.
+For a systematic study, the experiments should figure out that, for various
+grid parameters values, the simulator will confirm the targeted outcomes,
+particularly for poor and slow networks, focusing on the impact on the
+communication performance on the chosen class of algorithm.
The following paragraphs present the test conditions, the output results
and our comments.\\
-\subsubsection{Execution of the the algorithms on various computational grid
-architecture and scaling up the input matrix size}
+\subsubsection{Execution of the algorithms on various computational grid
+architectures and scaling up the input matrix size}
\ \\
% environment
-\begin{figure} [ht!]
+\begin{table} [ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid & 2x16, 4x8, 4x16 and 8x8\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2x16, 4x8, 4x16 and 8x8\\ %\hline
Network & N2 : bw=1Gbits/s - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ %\hline
- & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =170 x 170 x 170 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
-\caption{Clusters x Nodes with N$_{x}$=150 or N$_{x}$=170 \RC{je ne comprends pas la légende... Ca ne serait pas plutot Characteristics of cluster (mais il faudrait lui donner un nom)}}
+\caption{Test conditions: various grid configurations with the input matix size N$_{x}$=150 or N$_{x}$=170 \RC{N2 n'est pas défini..}\RC{Nx est défini, Ny? Nz?}
+\AG{La lettre 'x' n'est pas le symbole de la multiplication. Utiliser \texttt{\textbackslash times}. Idem dans le texte, les figures, etc.}}
+\label{tab:01}
\end{center}
-\end{figure}
-
+\end{table}
-%\RCE{J'ai voulu mettre les tableaux des données mais je pense que c'est inutile et ça va surcharger}
-In this section, we analyze the performences of algorithms running on various
-grid configuration (2x16, 4x8, 4x16 and 8x8). First, the results in Figure~\ref{fig:01}
-show for all grid configuration the non-variation of the number of iterations of
-classical GMRES for a given input matrix size; it is not the case for the
+In this section, we analyze the performance of algorithms running on various
+grid configurations (2x16, 4x8, 4x16 and 8x8). First, the results in Figure~\ref{fig:01}
+show for all grid configurations the non-variation of the number of iterations of
+classical GMRES for a given input matrix size; it is not the case for the
multisplitting method.
\RC{CE attention tu n'as pas mis de label dans tes figures, donc c'est le bordel, j'en mets mais vérifie...}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_nx_150_and_nx_170.pdf}
\end{center}
- \caption{Cluster x Nodes N$_{x}$=150 and N$_{x}$=170}
+ \caption{Various grid configurations with the input matrix size N$_{x}$=150 and N$_{x}$=170\RC{idem}
+\AG{Utiliser le point comme séparateur décimal et non la virgule. Idem dans les autres figures.}}
\label{fig:01}
\end{figure}
-The execution time difference between the two algorithms is important when
-comparing between different grid architectures, even with the same number of
-processors (like 2x16 and 4x8 = 32 processors for example). The
-experiment concludes the low sensitivity of the multisplitting method
-(compared with the classical GMRES) when scaling up the number of the processors in the grid: in average, the GMRES (resp. Multisplitting) algorithm performs 40\% better (resp. 48\%) less when running from 2x16=32 to 8x8=64 processors.
+The execution times between the two algorithms is significant with different
+grid architectures, even with the same number of processors (for example, 2x16
+and 4x8). We can observ the low sensitivity of the Krylov multisplitting method
+(compared with the classical GMRES) when scaling up the number of the processors
+in the grid: in average, the GMRES (resp. Multisplitting) algorithm performs
+$40\%$ better (resp. $48\%$) when running from 2x16=32 to 8x8=64 processors. \RC{pas très clair, c'est pas précis de dire qu'un algo perform mieux qu'un autre, selon quel critère?}
-\textit{\\3.b Running on two different speed cluster inter-networks\\}
+\subsubsection{Running on two different inter-clusters network speeds \\}
-% environment
-\begin{footnotesize}
+\begin{table} [ht!]
+\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid & 2x16, 4x8\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2x16, 4x8\\ %\hline
Network & N1 : bw=10Gbs-lat=8.10$^{-6}$ \\ %\hline
- & N2 : bw=1Gbs-lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline \\
+ Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
-Table 2 : Clusters x Nodes - Networks N1 x N2 \\
-
- \end{footnotesize}
+\caption{Test conditions: grid 2x16 and 4x8 with networks N1 vs N2}
+\label{tab:02}
+\end{center}
+\end{table}
+These experiments compare the behavior of the algorithms running first on a
+speed inter-cluster network (N1) and also on a less performant network (N2). \RC{Il faut définir cela avant...}
+Figure~\ref{fig:02} shows that end users will reduce the execution time
+for both algorithms when using a grid architecture like 4x16 or 8x8: the reduction is about $2$. The results depict also that when
+the network speed drops down (variation of 12.5\%), the difference between the two Multisplitting algorithms execution times can reach more than 25\%.
+%\RC{c'est pas clair : la différence entre quoi et quoi?}
+%\DL{pas clair}
+%\RCE{Modifie}
%\begin{wrapfigure}{l}{100mm}
\begin{figure} [ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_n1_x_n2.pdf}
-\caption{Cluster x Nodes N1 x N2}
-%\label{overflow}}
+\caption{Grid 2x16 and 4x8 with networks N1 vs N2
+\AG{\np{8E-6}, \np{5E-6} au lieu de 8E-6, 5E-6}}
+\label{fig:02}
\end{figure}
%\end{wrapfigure}
-The experiments compare the behavior of the algorithms running first on
-a speed inter- cluster network (N1) and also on a less performant network (N2).
-Figure 4 shows that end users will gain to reduce the execution time
-for both algorithms in using a grid architecture like 4x16 or 8x8: the
-performance was increased in a factor of 2. The results depict also that
-when the network speed drops down (12.5\%), the difference between the execution
-times can reach more than 25\%.
-\textit{\\3.c Network latency impacts on performance\\}
-
-% environment
-\begin{footnotesize}
+\subsubsection{Network latency impacts on performance}
+\ \\
+\begin{table} [ht!]
+\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid & 2x16\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2x16\\ %\hline
Network & N1 : bw=1Gbs \\ %\hline
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline\\
+ Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
-Table 3 : Network latency impact \\
-
-\end{footnotesize}
+\caption{Test conditions: network latency impacts}
+\label{tab:03}
+\end{table}
\begin{figure} [ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{network_latency_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
-\caption{Network latency impact on execution time}
-%\label{overflow}}
+\caption{Network latency impacts on execution time
+\AG{\np{E-6}}}
+\label{fig:03}
\end{figure}
-According the results in figure 5, degradation of the network
-latency from 8.10$^{-6}$ to 6.10$^{-5}$ implies an absolute time
-increase more than 75\% (resp. 82\%) of the execution for the classical
-GMRES (resp. multisplitting) algorithm. In addition, it appears that the
-multisplitting method tolerates more the network latency variation with
-a less rate increase of the execution time. Consequently, in the worst case (lat=6.10$^{-5
-}$), the execution time for GMRES is almost the double of the time for
-the multisplitting, even though, the performance was on the same order
-of magnitude with a latency of 8.10$^{-6}$.
-
-\textit{\\3.d Network bandwidth impacts on performance\\}
+According to the results of Figure~\ref{fig:03}, a degradation of the network
+latency from $8.10^{-6}$ to $6.10^{-5}$ implies an absolute time increase of
+more than $75\%$ (resp. $82\%$) of the execution for the classical GMRES
+(resp. Krylov multisplitting) algorithm. In addition, it appears that the
+Krylov multisplitting method tolerates more the network latency variation with a
+less rate increase of the execution time.\RC{Les 2 précédentes phrases me
+ semblent en contradiction....} Consequently, in the worst case ($lat=6.10^{-5
+}$), the execution time for GMRES is almost the double than the time of the
+Krylov multisplitting, even though, the performance was on the same order of
+magnitude with a latency of $8.10^{-6}$.
-% environment
-\begin{footnotesize}
+\subsubsection{Network bandwidth impacts on performance}
+\ \\
+\begin{table} [ht!]
+\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid & 2x16\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2x16\\ %\hline
Network & N1 : bw=1Gbs - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline \\
\end{tabular}
-Table 4 : Network bandwidth impact \\
-
-\end{footnotesize}
+\caption{Test conditions: Network bandwidth impacts\RC{Qu'est ce qui varie ici? Il n'y a pas de variation dans le tableau}}
+\label{tab:04}
+\end{table}
\begin{figure} [ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{network_bandwith_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
-\caption{Network bandwith impact on execution time}
-%\label{overflow}
+\caption{Network bandwith impacts on execution time
+\AG{``Execution time'' avec un 't' minuscule}. Idem autres figures.}
+\label{fig:04}
\end{figure}
+The results of increasing the network bandwidth show the improvement of the
+performance for both algorithms by reducing the execution time (see
+Figure~\ref{fig:04}). However, in this case, the Krylov multisplitting method
+presents a better performance in the considered bandwidth interval with a gain
+of $40\%$ which is only around $24\%$ for the classical GMRES.
-
-The results of increasing the network bandwidth show the improvement
-of the performance for both of the two algorithms by reducing the execution time (Figure 6). However, and again in this case, the multisplitting method presents a better performance in the considered bandwidth interval with a gain of 40\% which is only around 24\% for classical GMRES.
-
-\textit{\\3.e Input matrix size impacts on performance\\}
-
-% environment
-\begin{footnotesize}
+\subsubsection{Input matrix size impacts on performance}
+\ \\
+\begin{table} [ht!]
+\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid & 4x8\\ %\hline
- Network & N2 : bw=1Gbs - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ = From 40 to 200\\ \hline \\
+ Grid Architecture & 4x8\\ %\hline
+ Network & N2 : bw=1Gbs - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\
+ Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ = From 40 to 200\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
-Table 5 : Input matrix size impact\\
-
-\end{footnotesize}
+\caption{Test conditions: Input matrix size impacts}
+\label{tab:05}
+\end{table}
\begin{figure} [ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{pb_size_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
-\caption{Pb size impact on execution time}
-%\label{overflow}}
+\caption{Problem size impacts on execution time}
+\label{fig:05}
\end{figure}
-In this experimentation, the input matrix size has been set from
-N$_{x}$ = N$_{y}$ = N$_{z}$ = 40 to 200 side elements that is from 40$^{3}$ = 64.000 to
-200$^{3}$ = 8.000.000 points. Obviously, as shown in the figure 7,
-the execution time for the two algorithms convergence increases with the
-iinput matrix size. But the interesting results here direct on (i) the
-drastic increase (300 times) of the number of iterations needed before
-the convergence for the classical GMRES algorithm when the matrix size
-go beyond N$_{x}$=150; (ii) the classical GMRES execution time also almost
-the double from N$_{x}$=140 compared with the convergence time of the
-multisplitting method. 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. Note that the
-same test has been done with the grid 2x16 getting the same conclusion.
-
-\textit{\\3.f CPU Power impact on performance\\}
+In these experiments, the input matrix size has been set from $N_{x} = N_{y}
+= N_{z} = 40$ to $200$ side elements that is from $40^{3} = 64.000$ to $200^{3}
+= 8,000,000$ points. Obviously, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:05}, the execution
+time for both algorithms increases when the input matrix size also increases.
+But the interesting results are:
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item the drastic increase ($10$ times) of the number of iterations needed to
+ reach the convergence for the classical GMRES algorithm when the matrix size
+ go beyond $N_{x}=150$; \RC{C'est toujours pas clair... ok le nommbre d'itérations est 10 fois plus long mais la suite de la phrase ne veut rien dire}
+\item the classical GMRES execution time is almost the double for $N_{x}=140$
+ compared with the Krylov multisplitting method.
+\end{enumerate}
-% environment
-\begin{footnotesize}
+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 2x16 leading to the same conclusion.
+
+\subsubsection{CPU Power impacts on performance}
+
+\begin{table} [ht!]
+\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid & 2x16\\ %\hline
+ Grid architecture & 2x16\\ %\hline
Network & N2 : bw=1Gbs - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ = 150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
-Table 6 : CPU Power impact \\
-
-\end{footnotesize}
-
+\caption{Test conditions: CPU Power impacts}
+\label{tab:06}
+\end{table}
\begin{figure} [ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{cpu_power_impact_on_execution_time.pdf}
-\caption{CPU Power impact on execution time}
-%\label{overflow}}
-s\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 the figure 6
-confirm the performance gain, around 95\% for both of the two methods,
-after adding more powerful CPU.
-
-\subsection{Comparing GMRES in native synchronous mode and
-Multisplitting algorithms in asynchronous mode}
-
-The previous paragraphs put in evidence the interests to simulate the
-behavior of the application before any deployment in a real environment.
-We have focused the study on analyzing the performance in varying the
-key factors impacting the results. The study compares
-the performance of the two proposed algorithms both in \textit{synchronous mode
-}. In this section, following the same previous methodology, the goal is to
-demonstrate the efficiency of the multisplitting method in \textit{
-asynchronous mode} compared with the classical GMRES staying in
-\textit{synchronous mode}.
-
-Note that the interest of using the asynchronous mode for data exchange
-is mainly, in opposite of the synchronous mode, the non-wait aspects of
-the current computation after a communication operation like sending
-some data between nodes. Each processor can continue their local
-calculation without waiting for the end of the communication. Thus, the
-asynchronous may theoretically reduce the overall execution time and can
-improve the algorithm performance.
-
-As stated supra, Simgrid simulator tool has been used to prove the
-efficiency of the multisplitting in asynchronous mode and to find the
-best combination of the grid resources (CPU, Network, input matrix size,
-\ldots ) to get the highest \textit{"relative gain"} (exec\_time$_{GMRES}$ / exec\_time$_{multisplitting}$) in comparison with the classical GMRES time.
-
-
-The test conditions are summarized in the table below : \\
+\caption{CPU Power impacts on execution time}
+\label{fig:06}
+\end{figure}
-% environment
-\begin{footnotesize}
+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}
+
+
+\subsection{Comparing GMRES in native synchronous mode and the multisplitting algorithm in asynchronous mode}
+
+The previous paragraphs put in evidence the interests to simulate the behavior
+of the application before any deployment in a real environment. In this
+section, following the same previous methodology, our goal is to compare the
+efficiency of the multisplitting method in \textit{ asynchronous mode} compared with the
+classical GMRES in \textit{synchronous mode}.
+
+The interest of using an asynchronous algorithm is that there is no more
+synchronization. With geographically distant clusters, this may be essential.
+In this case, each processor can compute its iteration freely without any
+synchronization with the other processors. Thus, the asynchronous may
+theoretically reduce the overall execution time and can improve the algorithm
+performance.
+
+\RC{la phrase suivante est bizarre, je ne comprends pas pourquoi elle vient ici}
+In this section, Simgrid simulator tool has been successfully used to show
+the efficiency of the multisplitting in asynchronous mode and to find the best
+combination of the grid resources (CPU, Network, input matrix size, \ldots ) to
+get the highest \textit{"relative gain"} (exec\_time$_{GMRES}$ /
+exec\_time$_{multisplitting}$) in comparison with the classical GMRES time.
+
+
+The test conditions are summarized in the table~\ref{tab:07}: \\
+
+\begin{table} [ht!]
+\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid & 2x50 totaling 100 processors\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2x50 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 \\
\end{tabular}
-\end{footnotesize}
+\caption{Test conditions: GMRES in synchronous mode vs Krylov Multisplitting in asynchronous mode}
+\label{tab:07}
+\end{table}
-Again, comprehensive and extensive tests have been conducted varying the
-CPU power and the network parameters (bandwidth and latency) in the
-simulator tool with different problem size. The relative gains greater
-than 1 between the two algorithms have been captured after each step of
-the test. Table 7 below has recorded the best grid configurations
-allowing the multisplitting method execution time more performant 2.5 times than
-the classical GMRES execution and convergence time. The experimentation has demonstrated the relative multisplitting algorithm tolerance when using a low speed network that we encounter usually with distant clusters thru the internet.
+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
+Figure~\ref{fig:07} 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}}
\end{tabular}}
-\begin{table}[!t]
- \centering
+\begin{figure}[!t]
+\centering
+%\begin{table}
% \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared with the classical GMRES}
% \label{"Table 7"}
-Table 7. Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared with
-the classical GMRES \\
-
- \begin{mytable}{11}
+ \begin{mytable}{11}
\hline
bandwidth (Mbit/s)
& 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 \\
& 2.52 & 2.55 & 2.52 & 2.57 & 2.54 & 2.53 & 2.51 & 2.58 & 2.55 & 2.54 \\
\hline
\end{mytable}
-\end{table}
+%\end{table}
+ \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared with the classical GMRES
+\AG{C'est un tableau, pas une figure}}
+ \label{fig:07}
+\end{figure}
+
\section{Conclusion}
CONCLUSION
-\section*{Acknowledgment}
-
+%\section*{Acknowledgment}
+\ack
This work is partially funded by the Labex ACTION program (contract ANR-11-LABX-01-01).
-
\bibliographystyle{wileyj}
\bibliography{biblio}
+\AG{Warning bibtex à corriger (%
+ \texttt{empty booktitle in Bru95}%
+).}
\end{document}
