DOCSLIB.ORG

CPU Resource Control and Accounting in the NOMADS Mobile Agent System1 Paul T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CPU Resource Control and Accounting in the NOMADS Mobile Agent System1 Paul T CPU Resource Control and Accounting in the NOMADS Mobile Agent System1 Paul T. Groth and Niranjan Suri Institute for Human & Machine Cognition University of West Florida {pgroth,nsuri}@ai.uwf.edu 1. Introduction NOMADS [7] is a mobile agent system for Java-based mobile agents. One of the key enhancements provided by NOMADS is the ability to monitor and control resources consumed by agents running within the NOMADS environment. This paper describes the CPU resource control mechanism, which complements the disk and network resource controls already available in the NOMADS environment. The CPU resource control allows the rate of CPU usage of agents to be limited. Such controls are necessary to protect a host from malicious agents that may launch denial-of- service attacks. NOMADS also allows the limit to be changed dynamically. The ability to apply and change resource limits can be used not only to protect the host, but also to control poorly written or buggy agents from running amok and to change the priorities of executing agents. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a brief overview of the NOMADS mobile agent system. This is followed by a short discussion of our requirements and motivations for CPU resource control in section 3. Then section 4 discusses the current implementation of the resource control mechanism. Section 5 describes the CPU accounting mechanisms. Section 6 presents some initial performance results. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of related and future work in sections 7 and 8. 2. Overview of NOMADS The NOMADS mobile agent system offers two key advantages over other Java-based mobile agent systems: strong mobility and fine-grained resource control. Strong mobility allows the execution state of an agent to be captured and moved with the agent from one host to another. NOMADS uses the state-capture mechanism to go beyond strong mobility and also support forced mobility, which allows the system to move agents from one host to another by force (potentially in a completely transparent manner to the agent). Such forced mobility is extremely useful for situations that involve load balancing, process migration, systems shutting down, etc. The resource control mechanism in NOMADS allows control over the rate and quantity of resources used by agents. Dynamically adjustable limits can be placed on several parameters including disk read rate, disk write rate, network read rate, and network write 1 This research is supported in part by DARPA’s Control of Agent Based Systems (CoABS) program and the National Technology Alliance (NTA)/NIMA. rate. Such limits are expressed in bytes per millisecond. Quantity limits include disk space, total number of bytes read from the disk, total number of bytes written to the disk, total number of bytes read from the network, and total number of bytes written to the network. These resource control mechanisms complement Java’s access control mechanisms and help in making the NOMADS system much more secure against malicious agents. The NOMADS system consists of two major components: the Aroma Virtual Machine (VM) and the Oasis Agent Execution Environment. The Aroma VM is a clean-room implementation of a Java-compatible VM and offers several capabilities over those provided by the standard Java VM including the ability to capture execution state and to limit resource access. Oasis builds on top of the capabilities of the Aroma VM to provide strong mobility and resource control. The Oasis Console program allows users to administer the NOMADS environment and interact with running agents. Figure 1 shows the structure of NOMADS. Oasis Execution Environment Oasis Console (Administration and Interaction Program) Oasis Process AromaVM AromaVM Policy Manager (Running Agent A) (Running Agent B) Dispatcher Protocol Handler Messaging Handler Figure 1: NOMADS Components The resource limits enforced by the Aroma VM may be specified in a number of different ways. NOMADS includes a policy manager component that allows administrators to specify security policies for different agents. Policies may specify limits for any or all the different resource controls supported by NOMADS. When an agent is authenticated, the policy manager locates the policy that needs to be applied to the agent and notifies the Aroma VM running that agent to enforce the resource limits. Oasis also supports a network-based administration protocol that allows other components to dynamically query the resource utilization and to change the resource limits of any executing agent. 3. Requirements for CPU Resource Control Unlike the disk and network resource control mechanisms, the widely differing speed of processors poses a unique challenge for CPU resource control. In particular, we wished to support two alternative means of expressing the resource limit. The first alternative is to express the limit in terms of some quantity of processing done per unit time by the agent. Since NOMADS executes Java bytecodes, the approach we have adopted is to express the limit in terms of bytecodes per millisecond. The advantage the administrator expressing a limit in terms of bytecodes per unit time is that given the processing requirements of an agent, the agent’s execution time (or time to complete a task) may be predicted. Another advantage of expressing limits in terms of bytecodes per unit time is that the limit is system and architecture independent. We plan to extend NOMADS to allow agents to specify requirements for minimum resource limits. Using bytecodes per unit time allows agents to request quality of service in a platform independent manner. This is particularly important if a resource conscious mobile agent travels to systems with different CPU characteristics. The second alternative is to express the limit in terms of some percentage of CPU time that may be consumed by the agent. This limit is expressed as a number between 0 and 100. The disadvantage of the previous mechanism of expressing limits in terms of bytecodes per unit time is that the administrator of the host may not know the demands that the agent may place on that particular host. This variability may result in a hosts resources being either over committed or underutilized. This problem is addressed by allowing administrators to express limits in terms of percentage of CPU time. We expect that in the general case, agent developers (or agent owners) will specify requirements for the agents in terms of bytecodes per unit time whereas system administrators will specify constraints in terms of percentage of CPU time. Although the current thread scheduler in NOMADS does not support agents specifying requirements, we believe that when requirements are supported, that the scheduler will give priority to constraints specified by administrators. 4. CPU Resource Control Implementation CPU resource control in NOMADS is implemented at two levels. At the lower level, the Aroma VM enforces a limit on the number of bytecodes that a thread should be allowed to execute per millisecond. At a higher level, a thread scheduler takes limits specified in terms of CPU percentage and maps those limits to underlying per-thread limits expressed in bytecodes per millisecond. The thread scheduler runs as a separate native thread in the Aroma VM and periodically monitors the CPU utilization of each Java thread. When the scheduler observes that the CPU utilization of a Java thread has increased, the scheduler lowers the Java thread’s bytecodes per millisecond limit and vice-versa. The following two subsections describe the implementation in more detail. 1. Limit Expressed as Bytecodes Per Unit Time Each Aroma VM executes a single agent but may contain several concurrently running Java threads. The Aroma VM allows a bytecodes per millisecond limit to be placed on each individual thread running. After every Java bytecode is executed, the VM invokes a function named enforceCPURateLimit, which performs the necessary accounting and enforcement. Figure 2 shows the basic algorithm implemented by the enforceCPURateLimit function. The algorithm first computes the number of bytecodes that should be allowed in a 100-millisecond interval. Then, each time the number of bytecodes allowed per interval has been executed, the algorithm checks to see how much of the 100 milliseconds have elapsed. If there is any remaining time, the algorithm puts the thread to sleep so that no more bytecodes are executed until the start of the next interval. Note that for efficiency the algorithm uses intervals of 100 milliseconds in enforcing the CPU rate limit. This implies that within 100 milliseconds, the algorithm does not care about the distribution of the load on the CPU. However, the algorithm guarantees that the average number of bytecodes per 100 milliseconds will be limited correctly. This interval may be decreased if a more even distribution of the CPU load is desired although decreasing the interval will result in an increase in overhead. // State Variables intervalStartTime // Start time of the current 100 MS interval bytecodeCount // Number of bytecodes executed in the interval bytecodesPerInterval // Number of bytecodes allowed in one interval bytecodeCount++ if (bytecodeCount == bytecodesPerInterval) currentTime = <current time> elapsedTime = currentTime - intervalStartTime if (elapsedTime < 100) // 100 milliseconds timeToSleep = 100 – elapsedTime sleep (timeToSleep) intervalStartTime = currentTime bytecodeCount = 0 Figure 2: Algorithm for enforceCPURateLimit 2. Limit Expressed as
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Microbenchmarks in Big Data
    M Microbenchmark Overview Microbenchmarks constitute the first line of per- Nicolas Poggi formance testing. Through them, we can ensure Databricks Inc., Amsterdam, NL, BarcelonaTech the proper and timely functioning of the different (UPC), Barcelona, Spain individual components that make up our system. The term micro, of course, depends on the prob- lem size. In BigData we broaden the concept Synonyms to cover the testing of large-scale distributed systems and computing frameworks. This chap- Component benchmark; Functional benchmark; ter presents the historical background, evolution, Test central ideas, and current key applications of the field concerning BigData. Definition Historical Background A microbenchmark is either a program or routine to measure and test the performance of a single Origins and CPU-Oriented Benchmarks component or task. Microbenchmarks are used to Microbenchmarks are closer to both hardware measure simple and well-defined quantities such and software testing than to competitive bench- as elapsed time, rate of operations, bandwidth, marking, opposed to application-level – macro or latency. Typically, microbenchmarks were as- – benchmarking. For this reason, we can trace sociated with the testing of individual software microbenchmarking influence to the hardware subroutines or lower-level hardware components testing discipline as can be found in Sumne such as the CPU and for a short period of time. (1974). Furthermore, we can also find influence However, in the BigData scope, the term mi- in the origins of software testing methodology crobenchmarking is broadened to include the during the 1970s, including works such cluster – group of networked computers – acting as Chow (1978). One of the first examples of as a single system, as well as the testing of a microbenchmark clearly distinguishable from frameworks, algorithms, logical and distributed software testing is the Whetstone benchmark components, for a longer period and larger data developed during the late 1960s and published sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks
    9 Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks Kaivalya M. Dixit IBM Corporation “The reputation of current benchmarketing claims regarding system performance is on par with the promises made by politicians during elections.” Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) was founded in October, 1988, by Apollo, Hewlett-Packard,MIPS Computer Systems and SUN Microsystems in cooperation with E. E. Times. SPEC is a nonprofit consortium of 22 major computer vendors whose common goals are “to provide the industry with a realistic yardstick to measure the performance of advanced computer systems” and to educate consumers about the performance of vendors’ products. SPEC creates, maintains, distributes, and endorses a standardized set of application-oriented programs to be used as benchmarks. 489 490 CHAPTER 9 Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks 9.1 Historical Perspective Traditional benchmarks have failed to characterize the system performance of modern computer systems. Some of those benchmarks measure component-level performance, and some of the measurements are routinely published as system performance. Historically, vendors have characterized the performances of their systems in a variety of confusing metrics. In part, the confusion is due to a lack of credible performance information, agreement, and leadership among competing vendors. Many vendors characterize system performance in millions of instructions per second (MIPS) and millions of floating-point operations per second (MFLOPS). All instructions, however, are not equal. Since CISC machine instructions usually accomplish a lot more than those of RISC machines, comparing the instructions of a CISC machine and a RISC machine is similar to comparing Latin and Greek. 9.1.1 Simple CPU Benchmarks Truth in benchmarking is an oxymoron because vendors use benchmarks for marketing purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypervisors Vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison
    2015 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering Hypervisors vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison Roberto Morabito, Jimmy Kjällman, and Miika Komu Ericsson Research, NomadicLab Jorvas, Finland [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract — Virtualization of operating systems provides a container and alternative solutions. The idea is to quantify the common way to run different services in the cloud. Recently, the level of overhead introduced by these platforms and the lightweight virtualization technologies claim to offer superior existing gap compared to a non-virtualized environment. performance. In this paper, we present a detailed performance The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: in comparison of traditional hypervisor based virtualization and Section II, literature review and a brief description of all the new lightweight solutions. In our measurements, we use several technologies and platforms evaluated is provided. The benchmarks tools in order to understand the strengths, methodology used to realize our performance comparison is weaknesses, and anomalies introduced by these different platforms in terms of processing, storage, memory and network. introduced in Section III. The benchmark results are presented Our results show that containers achieve generally better in Section IV. Finally, some concluding remarks and future performance when compared with traditional virtual machines work are provided in Section V. and other recent solutions. Albeit containers offer clearly more dense deployment of virtual machines, the performance II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK difference with other technologies is in many cases relatively small. In this section, we provide an overview of the different technologies included in the performance comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Measurement Tutorial for the Green500 List
    Power Measurement Tutorial for the Green500 List R. Ge, X. Feng, H. Pyla, K. Cameron, W. Feng June 27, 2007 Contents 1 The Metric for Energy-Efficiency Evaluation 1 2 How to Obtain P¯(Rmax)? 2 2.1 The Definition of P¯(Rmax)...................................... 2 2.2 Deriving P¯(Rmax) from Unit Power . 2 2.3 Measuring Unit Power . 3 3 The Measurement Procedure 3 3.1 Equipment Check List . 4 3.2 Software Installation . 4 3.3 Hardware Connection . 4 3.4 Power Measurement Procedure . 5 4 Appendix 6 4.1 Frequently Asked Questions . 6 4.2 Resources . 6 1 The Metric for Energy-Efficiency Evaluation This tutorial serves as a practical guide for measuring the computer system power that is required as part of a Green500 submission. It describes the basic procedures to be followed in order to measure the power consumption of a supercomputer. A supercomputer that appears on The TOP500 List can easily consume megawatts of electric power. This power consumption may lead to operating costs that exceed acquisition costs as well as intolerable system failure rates. In recent years, we have witnessed an increasingly stronger movement towards energy-efficient computing systems in academia, government, and industry. Thus, the purpose of the Green500 List is to provide a ranking of the most energy-efficient supercomputers in the world and serve as a complementary view to the TOP500 List. However, as pointed out in [1, 2], identifying a single objective metric for energy efficiency in supercom- puters is a difficult task. Based on [1, 2] and given the already existing use of the “performance per watt” metric, the Green500 List uses “performance per watt” (PPW) as its metric to rank the energy efficiency of supercomputers.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Performance Linpack (HPL) Benchmark Evaluation on UTP High Performance Computing Cluster by Wong Chun Shiang 16138 Diss
    The High Performance Linpack (HPL) Benchmark Evaluation on UTP High Performance Computing Cluster By Wong Chun Shiang 16138 Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Technology (Hons) (Information and Communications Technology) MAY 2015 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750 Tronoh Perak Darul Ridzuan CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL The High Performance Linpack (HPL) Benchmark Evaluation on UTP High Performance Computing Cluster by Wong Chun Shiang 16138 A project dissertation submitted to the Information & Communication Technology Programme Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY (Hons) (INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY) Approved by, ____________________________ (DR. IZZATDIN ABDUL AZIZ) UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS TRONOH, PERAK MAY 2015 ii CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the original work is my own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements, and that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by unspecified sources or persons. ________________ WONG CHUN SHIANG iii ABSTRACT UTP High Performance Computing Cluster (HPCC) is a collection of computing nodes using commercially available hardware interconnected within a network to communicate among the nodes. This campus wide cluster is used by researchers from internal UTP and external parties to compute intensive applications. However, the HPCC has never been benchmarked before. It is imperative to carry out a performance study to measure the true computing ability of this cluster. This project aims to test the performance of a campus wide computing cluster using a selected benchmarking tool, the High Performance Linkpack (HPL).
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on the Evaluation of HPC Microservices in Containerized Environment
    ReceivED XXXXXXXX; ReVISED XXXXXXXX; Accepted XXXXXXXX DOI: xxx/XXXX ARTICLE TYPE A Study ON THE Evaluation OF HPC Microservices IN Containerized EnVIRONMENT DeVKI Nandan Jha*1 | SaurABH Garg2 | Prem PrAKASH JaYARAMAN3 | Rajkumar Buyya4 | Zheng Li5 | GrAHAM Morgan1 | Rajiv Ranjan1 1School Of Computing, Newcastle UnivERSITY, UK Summary 2UnivERSITY OF Tasmania, Australia, 3Swinburne UnivERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AustrALIA Containers ARE GAINING POPULARITY OVER VIRTUAL MACHINES (VMs) AS THEY PROVIDE THE ADVANTAGES 4 The UnivERSITY OF Melbourne, AustrALIA OF VIRTUALIZATION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF NEAR bare-metal. The UNIFORMITY OF SUPPORT PROVIDED 5UnivERSITY IN Concepción, Chile BY DockER CONTAINERS ACROSS DIFFERENT CLOUD PROVIDERS MAKES THEM A POPULAR CHOICE FOR DEVel- Correspondence opers. EvOLUTION OF MICROSERVICE ARCHITECTURE ALLOWS COMPLEX APPLICATIONS TO BE STRUCTURED INTO *DeVKI Nandan Jha Email: [email protected] INDEPENDENT MODULAR COMPONENTS MAKING THEM EASIER TO manage. High PERFORMANCE COMPUTING (HPC) APPLICATIONS ARE ONE SUCH APPLICATION TO BE DEPLOYED AS microservices, PLACING SIGNIfiCANT RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS ON THE CONTAINER FRamework. HoweVER, THERE IS A POSSIBILTY OF INTERFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT MICROSERVICES HOSTED WITHIN THE SAME CONTAINER (intra-container) AND DIFFERENT CONTAINERS (inter-container) ON THE SAME PHYSICAL host. In THIS PAPER WE DESCRIBE AN Exten- SIVE EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DockER CONTAINERS EXECUTING HETEROGENEOUS HPC microservices. WE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH HOW INTRa- CONTAINER AND inter-container INTERFERENCE INflUENCES THE performance. MoreoVER, WE INVESTIGATE THE PERFORMANCE VARIATIONS IN DockER CONTAINERS WHEN CONTROL GROUPS (cgroups) ARE USED FOR RESOURCE limitation. FOR EASE OF PRESENTATION AND REPRODUCIBILITY, WE USE Cloud Evaluation Exper- IMENT Methodology (CEEM) TO CONDUCT OUR COMPREHENSIVE SET OF Experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Benchmarking for Cloud Computing Systems
    Fair Benchmarking for Cloud Computing Systems Authors: Lee Gillam Bin Li John O’Loughlin Anuz Pranap Singh Tomar March 2012 Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 3 Previous work ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Literature ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Related Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 6 4 Preparation ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Cloud Providers................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Cloud APIs ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Benchmark selection ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Architectures an Overview
    Computer Architectures An Overview PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:35:32 UTC Contents Articles Microarchitecture 1 x86 7 PowerPC 23 IBM POWER 33 MIPS architecture 39 SPARC 57 ARM architecture 65 DEC Alpha 80 AlphaStation 92 AlphaServer 95 Very long instruction word 103 Instruction-level parallelism 107 Explicitly parallel instruction computing 108 References Article Sources and Contributors 111 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 113 Article Licenses License 114 Microarchitecture 1 Microarchitecture In computer engineering, microarchitecture (sometimes abbreviated to µarch or uarch), also called computer organization, is the way a given instruction set architecture (ISA) is implemented on a processor. A given ISA may be implemented with different microarchitectures.[1] Implementations might vary due to different goals of a given design or due to shifts in technology.[2] Computer architecture is the combination of microarchitecture and instruction set design. Relation to instruction set architecture The ISA is roughly the same as the programming model of a processor as seen by an assembly language programmer or compiler writer. The ISA includes the execution model, processor registers, address and data formats among other things. The Intel Core microarchitecture microarchitecture includes the constituent parts of the processor and how these interconnect and interoperate to implement the ISA. The microarchitecture of a machine is usually represented as (more or less detailed) diagrams that describe the interconnections of the various microarchitectural elements of the machine, which may be everything from single gates and registers, to complete arithmetic logic units (ALU)s and even larger elements.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Performance of MPI-Openmp on a 12 Nodes Multi-Core Cluster
    On the Performance of MPI-OpenMP on a 12 nodes Multi-core Cluster Abdelgadir Tageldin Abdelgadir1, Al-Sakib Khan Pathan1∗ , Mohiuddin Ahmed2 1 Department of Computer Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Gombak 53100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2 Department of Computer Network, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] Abstract. With the increasing number of Quad-Core-based clusters and the introduction of compute nodes designed with large memory capacity shared by multiple cores, new problems related to scalability arise. In this paper, we analyze the overall performance of a cluster built with nodes having a dual Quad-Core Processor on each node. Some benchmark results are presented and some observations are mentioned when handling such processors on a benchmark test. A Quad-Core-based cluster's complexity arises from the fact that both local communication and network communications between the running processes need to be addressed. The potentials of an MPI-OpenMP approach are pinpointed because of its reduced communication overhead. At the end, we come to a conclusion that an MPI-OpenMP solution should be considered in such clusters since optimizing network communications between nodes is as important as optimizing local communications between processors in a multi-core cluster. Keywords: MPI-OpenMP, hybrid, Multi-Core, Cluster. 1 Introduction The integration of two or more processors within a single chip is an advanced technology for tackling the disadvantages exposed by a single core when it comes to increasing the speed, as more heat is generated and more power is consumed by those single cores.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Efficiency in High Performance Computing
    Power Efficiency in High Performance Computing Shoaib Kamil John Shalf Erich Strohmaier LBNL/UC Berkeley LBNL/NERSC LBNL/CRD [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 100 teraflop successor consumes almost 1,500 KW without After 15 years of exponential improvement in microproces- even being in the top 10. The first petaflop-scale systems, sor clock rates, the physical principles allowing for Dennard expected to debut in 2008, will draw 2-7 megawatts of power. scaling, which enabled performance improvements without a Projections for exaflop-scale computing systems, expected commensurate increase in power consumption, have all but in 2016-2018, range from 60-130 megawatts [16]. Therefore, ended. Until now, most HPC systems have not focused on fewer sites in the US will be able to host the largest scale power efficiency. However, as the cost of power reaches par- computing systems due to limited availability of facilities ity with capital costs, it is increasingly important to com- with sufficient power and cooling capabilities. Following this pare systems with metrics based on the sustained perfor- trend, over time an ever increasing proportion of an HPC mance per watt. Therefore we need to establish practical center’s budget will be needed for supplying power to these methods to measure power consumption of such systems in- systems. situ in order to support such metrics. Our study provides The root cause of this impending crisis is that chip power power measurements for various computational loads on the efficiency is no longer improving at historical rates. Up until largest scale HPC systems ever involved in such an assess- now, Moore’s Law improvements in photolithography tech- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 267 Dense Linear Algebra: History and Structure, Parallel Matrix
    Quick review of earlier lecture •" What do you call •" A program written in PyGAS, a Global Address CS 267 Space language based on Python… Dense Linear Algebra: •" That uses a Monte Carlo simulation algorithm to approximate π … History and Structure, •" That has a race condition, so that it gives you a Parallel Matrix Multiplication" different funny answer every time you run it? James Demmel! Monte - π - thon ! www.cs.berkeley.edu/~demmel/cs267_Spr16! ! 02/25/2016! CS267 Lecture 12! 1! 02/25/2016! CS267 Lecture 12! 2! Outline Outline •" History and motivation •" History and motivation •" What is dense linear algebra? •" What is dense linear algebra? •" Why minimize communication? •" Why minimize communication? •" Lower bound on communication •" Lower bound on communication •" Parallel Matrix-matrix multiplication •" Parallel Matrix-matrix multiplication •" Attaining the lower bound •" Attaining the lower bound •" Other Parallel Algorithms (next lecture) •" Other Parallel Algorithms (next lecture) 02/25/2016! CS267 Lecture 12! 3! 02/25/2016! CS267 Lecture 12! 4! CS267 Lecture 2 1 Motifs What is dense linear algebra? •" Not just matmul! The Motifs (formerly “Dwarfs”) from •" Linear Systems: Ax=b “The Berkeley View” (Asanovic et al.) •" Least Squares: choose x to minimize ||Ax-b||2 Motifs form key computational patterns •" Overdetermined or underdetermined; Unconstrained, constrained, or weighted •" Eigenvalues and vectors of Symmetric Matrices •" Standard (Ax = λx), Generalized (Ax=λBx) •" Eigenvalues and vectors of Unsymmetric matrices
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Evaluation of Vmware and Virtualbox
    2012 IACSIT Hong Kong Conferences IPCSIT vol. 29 (2012) © (2012) IACSIT Press, Singapore Performance Evaluation of VMware and VirtualBox Deepak K Damodaran1+, Biju R Mohan2, Vasudevan M S 3 and Dinesh Naik 4 Information Technology, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, India Abstract. Virtualization is a framework of dividing the resources of a computer into multiple execution environments. More specific it is a layer of software that provides the illusion of a real machine to multiple instances of virtual machines. Virtualization offers a lot of benefits including flexibility, security, ease to configuration and management, reduction of cost and so forth, but at the same time it also brings a certain degree of performance overhead. Furthermore, Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM) is the core component of virtual machine (VM) system and its effectiveness greatly impacts the performance of whole system. In this paper, we measure and analyze the performance of two virtual machine monitors VMware and VirtualBox using LMbench and IOzone, and provide a quantitative and qualitative comparison of both virtual machine monitors. Keywords: Virtualization, Virtual machine monitors, Performance. 1. Introduction Years ago, a problem aroused. How to run multiple operating systems on the same machine at the same time. The solution to this problem was virtual machines. Virtual machine monitor (VMM) the core part of virtual machines sits between one or more operating systems and the hardware and gives the illusion to each running operating system that it controls the machine. Behind the scenes, however the VMM actually is in control of the hardware, and must multiplex running operating systems across the physical resources of the machine.
    [Show full text]