[HPGMG Forum] HPGMG release v0.1

Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov
Mon Jun 9 02:01:51 UTC 2014


  Mark,

   Absolutely right and I noted in my first email, the problem is people cannot stop themselves from doing the comparison even when they know that it is wrong. An extreme response might be to normalize the curves from each machine so that they all start at the same point and then the only visible information would be the scaling for each machine, not that one curve is consistently above another curve (because of fatter nodes or whatever). Hmm, maybe that is not a bad idea?

   Barry

On Jun 8, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Mark Adams <mfadams at lbl.gov> wrote:

> This is a great discussion.  
> 
> As a more immediate matter, we should make clear that these are superimposed plots and a "socket" is not comparable in general (Edison and Peregrine in fact are).  These plots do not imply that a Cray XC30/Aries is a better HPGMG machine than BG/Q or K, for instance, but you can see that Aries is scaling noticeably better than Gemini and Infiniband on HPGMG (and HPL would probably not distinguish these interconnects).  We should try to make that clear in presentations and perhaps we (ie, Jed) could add a little disclaimer to this effect on this web page, seeing as it has gotten so much attention here.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Brian Van Straalen <bvstraalen at lbl.gov> wrote:
> Since ‘nodes’  seems to be the standard unit of allocation on compute platforms I still prefer nodes as a scaling.  When I start getting charged by the Joule I will desire an unambiguous way of measuring Joules to make sure the users are treated fairly.  
> 
> I know that my own host site NERSC uses hours*nodes*cores/node  which would seem to indicate people are core-counting, but perhaps Edison is the last of the truly Fat core platforms we will see and we will go back to allocation awards being in units of nodes.
> 
> to get around core/node/socket/accelerator/etc  you would probably have to drop all the way down to transistors, or better, die area.  Even that can be complicated for how you sum up SoC real estate.
> 
> If the various computing centers can figure out how to normalize their users across platforms then we should use the same normalization.
> 
> Brian
> 
> On Jun 8, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Constantinos Evangelinos <cevange at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> In my mind at least users ask a queuing system in most cases for nodes as node sharing is discouraged for obvious reasons. So nodes seems to me to be the most useful x-axis choice. Cores is problematic as (a) they get added in large block increments and (b) it stretches the axes a lot even without thinking of GPUs with the relatively wimpy cores in BG/Q and Xeon Phi.
>> 
>> Constantinos 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone so please excuse any typing errors
>> 
>> > On Jun 7, 2014, at 7:01 PM, "Sam Williams" <swwilliams at lbl.gov> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Nominally, there would be a paragraph describing the setup for a figure.  For this data, the x-axis is what is colloquially defined today as a numa node on the Cray machines.  There is one process per numa node.  Thus, for all of these machines, there is one process per chip.
>> > 
>> > K = 1 processes per compute node, 8 threads per process
>> > BGQ = 1 process per compute node, 64 threads per process
>> > Edison = 2 processes per compute node, 12 threads per process
>> > Peregrine = 2 processes per compute node, 12 threads per process
>> > Hopper = 4 processes per compute node, 6 threads per process
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Jun 7, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> > 
>> > >
>> > >  I submit that even nodes or “sockets” is actually not completely unambiguous
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 7, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Jun 7, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> The use of multicore processor == sockets as the independent variable in the plot of aggregate performance seems arbitrary. Though people should not use this kind of plot to compare machines they will. Now just change sockets to nodes and boom suddenly the machines compare very differently (since some systems have two sockets per node and some one). Should cores be used instead? Or hardware threads? Or cores scaled by their clock speed? Or hardware floating point units (scaled by clock speed?) ? Or number of instruction decorders? Power usage? Cost? etc etc. Maybe have a dynamic plot where one can switch the independent variable by selecting from a menu or moving the mouse over choices ….?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>  Yes, but how do we measure power? The actual amount being pulled from the “wall socket”? Is that possible? Like the various hardware features you mention I wouldn’t trust anything the vendor says about power.
>> > >>
>> > >> Assuming you run on more than one node, just use the total machine
>> > >> power that is used by Green500.  Granted, that is not ideal since it
>> > >> won't be measured for the same code, but at least there is a
>> > >> well-defined procedure for measuring it and hopefully it is at least
>> > >> roughly comparable between systems.
>> > >>
>> > >> But I agree that power is nearly as hard to get exactly right as
>> > >> anything else besides counting nodes.  That is about the only
>> > >> independent variable that seems unambiguous.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jeff
>> > >>
>> > >>>> The last suggestion is obviously the best one since it is the most
>> > >>>> general, but I think power is the best choice of independent variable.
>> > >>>> Most of the other hardware features are bad choices because it is very
>> > >>>> hard to determine some of these.  What is the clock speed of an Intel
>> > >>>> socket that does dynamic frequency scaling?  How do you count cores on
>> > >>>> a GPU?  NVIDIA's core-counting methodology is complete nonsense...
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Jeff
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> On Jun 7, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Mark Adams <mfadams at lbl.gov> writes:
>> > >>>>>>> We are please to announce that hpgmg.org and the associated mailing
>> > >>>>>>> list hpgmg-forum at hpgmg.org is officially available.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Thanks, Mark.  To help kick off the discussion, I would like to call
>> > >>>>>> attention to our recent blog posts describing "results".
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> The most recent announces the v0.1 release and includes a Kiviat diagram
>> > >>>>>> comparing the on-node performance characteristics of CORAL apps and
>> > >>>>>> several benchmarks running on Blue Gene/Q.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> https://hpgmg.org/2014/06/06/hpgmg-01/
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> This earlier post shows performance on a variety of top machines:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> https://hpgmg.org/2014/05/15/fv-results/
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> We are interested in better ways to collect and present the comparison
>> > >>>>>> data as well as any characteristics that you think are important.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> In addition to the general principles on the front page, some further
>> > >>>>>> rationale is given at:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> https://hpgmg.org/why/
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> None of this is set in stone and we would be happy to discuss any
>> > >>>>>> questions or comments on this list.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Please encourage any interested colleagues to subscribe to this list:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum
>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>>>> HPGMG-Forum mailing list
>> > >>>>>> HPGMG-Forum at hpgmg.org
>> > >>>>>> https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>>> HPGMG-Forum mailing list
>> > >>>>> HPGMG-Forum at hpgmg.org
>> > >>>>> https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> --
>> > >>>> Jeff Hammond
>> > >>>> jeff.science at gmail.com
>> > >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Jeff Hammond
>> > >> jeff.science at gmail.com
>> > >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > HPGMG-Forum mailing list
>> > > HPGMG-Forum at hpgmg.org
>> > > https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > HPGMG-Forum mailing list
>> > HPGMG-Forum at hpgmg.org
>> > https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum
>> > 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> HPGMG-Forum mailing list
>> HPGMG-Forum at hpgmg.org
>> https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum
> 
> Brian Van Straalen         Lawrence Berkeley Lab
> BVStraalen at lbl.gov         Computational Research
> (510) 486-4976             Division (crd.lbl.gov)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> HPGMG-Forum mailing list
> HPGMG-Forum at hpgmg.org
> https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> HPGMG-Forum mailing list
> HPGMG-Forum at hpgmg.org
> https://hpgmg.org/lists/listinfo/hpgmg-forum



More information about the HPGMG-Forum mailing list