Communication Pattern Based Node Selection for Shared Networks Srikanth Goteti Interactive Data Corp Jaspal Subhlok University of Houston AMS Symposium 2003

Resource Selection for Network/Grid Applications Model Data GUI Sim 1 Pre Stream Application ? where is the best performance Network

Current Approaches to Node Selection Model Data GUI Sim 1 Pre Stream Measure and model network properties, such as available bandwidth and CPU loads (with tools like NWS) Find “best” nodes for execution based on network status But expected application performance based on measured network status may not be accurate depends on application characteristics translation, e.g., unused bandwidth vs expected throughput data may be stale as frequent measurements are expensive

Performance Skeleton Performance Skeleton is a synthetic short running program whose execution characteristics mirror the application it represents An application and its skeleton have similar communication pattern synchronization pattern CPU usage memory usage Goal: Performance of a skeleton is directly related to the performance of the application under any condition e.g., a skeleton executes in .1% of the time the application takes to execute on any part of a shared network

Node Selection with Performance Skeletons Model Data GUI Data Sim 1 GUI Model Pre Stream Construct a skeleton for application of interest Sim 1 Pre Stream Select candidate node sets based on network status Execute the skeleton on them Select the node set with best skeleton performance to schedule actual application

Node Selection Procedure Construct a performance skeleton mostly by hand in this paper, subject of ongoing work Select candidate node sets identify the communication graph of the application typically a chain, ring or all-all structure obtain available bandwidth between nodes with NWS (Network Weather Service) and build a graph select nodes to “maximize the minimum available bandwidth” between pairs of communicating nodes best possible node sets based on application structure and network status Execute the skeleton on each candidate node set Select the node set with best skeleton performance, map one process to each node

Communication Structure of NAS Benchmarks 1 1 3 2 CG 1 2 3 2 3 BT IS 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 LU MG SP 1 2 3 EP

1 2

Validation Experiments Best nodes to execute benchmarks selected by each of the following methods… skeleton based: full framework discussed all to all: based on maximizing the minimum available bandwidth between on the network graph random …compare performance of the application on nodes selected by each of these procedures on a busy network Experiments repeated a large number of times to get statistically meaningful results

Experimental Framework Linux cluster of 10 dual CPU 1.7GHz Pentium nodes connected by 100 MHz links and crossbar switch experiments with Class B NAS MPI benchmark suite Class W NAS benchmarks (avrg runtime ~1.5 seconds on our cluster) used as skeletons for class B benchmarks available bandwidth between nodes is varied with Linux iproute2 for the duration of experiments as follows: path between a pair of nodes is “shared” by S streams i.e., available bandwidth is set to 1/S of peak one stream is randomly added to or removed from the cluster every 30 seconds

Performance Results: slowdown due to network traffic 1 3 2 CG skeleton based has average slowdown of 20%, versus 40 % for random and 27% for all to all significant variation across benchmarks, most benefit for CG – it is communication heavy and uses only 3 links

Conclusions type slide Performance skeletons have a role in resource management for grids removes limitations of using NWS type systems (what you measure versus what you get problem) A lot more experimentation is needed to establish and validate the concepts Automatic construction of performance skeletons is a major open challenge Skeletons may have other uses a fast way of estimating the performance of an application e.g. on a slow simulated future system