Performance oriented partial checkpoint and migration of lam/mpi applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In parallel computing, MPI is heavily used due to its support of popular cluster based parallel machines and the Single Program Multiple Data (SPMD) model. Normally cluster nodes are dedicated to a single parallel job/application but MPI could also be used with nodes that are concurrently shared by multiple users. In this case, nodes could become overloaded with work from other users. Even a few overloaded nodes can result in application slowdown. Thus, it is desirable to relocate affected processes in a running application to lightly loaded nodes by partial checkpointing and migrating of those processes. In some MPI applications, groups of processes communicate frequently with one another. Such groups must be near one another to ensure communication efficiency. Thus, if any member of a group is to be checkpointed and migrated, all should be. It must therefore be possible to identify such groups. I have built a prototype, using LAM/MPI, that supports partial checkpoint, migration and restart of MPI processes. To identify process groups for checkpoint and migration, I adapted TEIRESIAS (an algorithm for pattern discovery from bioinformatics) to identify frequent, recurring patterns of communication using data gathered by LAM/MPI. I then created predictors that use the discovered patterns to predict groups of communicating processes that should be checkpointed and migrated together. I have assessed the effectiveness of my technique using synthetic and real communication data (for a small set of representative applications) to show that my predictors can accurately predict process groups for those applications. Additionally, I have created a simple simulation system to allow me to explore scenarios related to network characteristics and overload conditions under which my system might provide useful speedup. Not all MPI applications will benefit from my approach (e.g. those with unpredictable communication patterns or large groups of frequently communicating processes). However, my experimental and simulation results suggest that my technique should be effective for a number of common application types, network characteristics and overload conditions. Using partial checkpoint and migration should therefore allow many long running applications to finish faster than if a subset of their processes was left running on overloaded nodes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".