Fault-tolerant Adaptive Divisible Load Scheduling Xuan Lin, Sumanth J. V. Acknowledge: a few slides of DLT are from Thomas Robertazzi ’ s presentation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Divisible Load Scheduling A Tutorial Thomas Robertazzi University at Stony Brook.
Advertisements

Resource Management §A resource can be a logical, such as a shared file, or physical, such as a CPU (a node of the distributed system). One of the functions.
Improving TCP Performance over Mobile Ad Hoc Networks by Exploiting Cross- Layer Information Awareness Xin Yu Department Of Computer Science New York University,
Small-world Overlay P2P Network
The Organic Grid: Self- Organizing Computation on a Peer-to-Peer Network Presented by : Xuan Lin.
Dynamic Load Balancing Experiments in a Grid Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands CWI Amsterdam, The
Dynamic Hypercube Topology Stefan Schmid URAW 2005 Upper Rhine Algorithms Workshop University of Tübingen, Germany.
Scheduling with Optimized Communication for Time-Triggered Embedded Systems Slide 1 Scheduling with Optimized Communication for Time-Triggered Embedded.
High Performance Computing 1 Parallelization Strategies and Load Balancing Some material borrowed from lectures of J. Demmel, UC Berkeley.
Distributed Systems Fall 2009 Replication Fall 20095DV0203 Outline Group communication Fault-tolerant services –Passive and active replication Highly.
1 Introduction to Load Balancing: l Definition of Distributed systems. Collection of independent loosely coupled computing resources. l Load Balancing.
Present by Chen, Ting-Wei Adaptive Task Checkpointing and Replication: Toward Efficient Fault-Tolerant Grids Maria Chtepen, Filip H.A. Claeys, Bart Dhoedt,
GHS: A Performance Prediction and Task Scheduling System for Grid Computing Xian-He Sun Department of Computer Science Illinois Institute of Technology.
Adaptive Stream Processing using Dynamic Batch Sizing Tathagata Das, Yuan Zhong, Ion Stoica, Scott Shenker.
Distributed Process Management1 Learning Objectives Distributed Scheduling Algorithms Coordinator Elections Orphan Processes.
Analysis of Simulation Results Andy Wang CIS Computer Systems Performance Analysis.
Self-Organizing Agents for Grid Load Balancing Junwei Cao Fifth IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing (GRID'04)
Introduction to Parallel Programming MapReduce Except where otherwise noted all portions of this work are Copyright (c) 2007 Google and are licensed under.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS 2007 (TPDS 2007)
Predictive Runtime Code Scheduling for Heterogeneous Architectures 1.
OPTIMAL SERVER PROVISIONING AND FREQUENCY ADJUSTMENT IN SERVER CLUSTERS Presented by: Xinying Zheng 09/13/ XINYING ZHENG, YU CAI MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL.
 Escalonamento e Migração de Recursos e Balanceamento de carga Carlos Ferrão Lopes nº M6935 Bruno Simões nº M6082 Celina Alexandre nº M6807.
1 Adaptive QoS Framework for Wireless Sensor Networks Lucy He Honeywell Technology & Solutions Lab No. 430 Guo Li Bin Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai,
ROBUST RESOURCE ALLOCATION OF DAGS IN A HETEROGENEOUS MULTI-CORE SYSTEM Luis Diego Briceño, Jay Smith, H. J. Siegel, Anthony A. Maciejewski, Paul Maxwell,
Young Suk Moon Chair: Dr. Hans-Peter Bischof Reader: Dr. Gregor von Laszewski Observer: Dr. Minseok Kwon 1.
Scheduling Many-Body Short Range MD Simulations on a Cluster of Workstations and Custom VLSI Hardware Sumanth J.V, David R. Swanson and Hong Jiang University.
DLS on Star (Single-level tree) Networks Background: A simple network model for DLS is the star network with a master-worker platform. It consists of a.
Maximum Network Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks with Adjustable Sensing Ranges Cardei, M.; Jie Wu; Mingming Lu; Pervaiz, M.O.; Wireless And Mobile.
Euro-Par, A Resource Allocation Approach for Supporting Time-Critical Applications in Grid Environments Qian Zhu and Gagan Agrawal Department of.
1 University of Maryland Linger-Longer: Fine-Grain Cycle Stealing in Networks of Workstations Kyung Dong Ryu © Copyright 2000, Kyung Dong Ryu, All Rights.
IPDPS 2005, slide 1 Automatic Construction and Evaluation of “Performance Skeletons” ( Predicting Performance in an Unpredictable World ) Sukhdeep Sodhi.
ICOM 6115: Computer Systems Performance Measurement and Evaluation August 11, 2006.
Advanced Spectrum Management in Multicell OFDMA Networks enabling Cognitive Radio Usage F. Bernardo, J. Pérez-Romero, O. Sallent, R. Agustí Radio Communications.
Robustness of complex networks with the local protection strategy against cascading failures Jianwei Wang Adviser: Frank,Yeong-Sung Lin Present by Wayne.
5 May CmpE 516 Fault Tolerant Scheduling in Multiprocessor Systems Betül Demiröz.
Slides for Parallel Programming Techniques & Applications Using Networked Workstations & Parallel Computers 2nd ed., by B. Wilkinson & M
MMAC: A Mobility- Adaptive, Collision-Free MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks Muneeb Ali, Tashfeen Suleman, and Zartash Afzal Uzmi IEEE Performance,
End-To-End Scheduling Angelo Corsaro & Venkita Subramonian Department of Computer Science Washington University Distributed Systems Seminar, Spring 2003.
1/22 Optimization of Google Cloud Task Processing with Checkpoint-Restart Mechanism Speaker: Sheng Di Coauthors: Yves Robert, Frédéric Vivien, Derrick.
CS 484 Load Balancing. Goal: All processors working all the time Efficiency of 1 Distribute the load (work) to meet the goal Two types of load balancing.
Project18’s Communication Drawing Design By: Camilo A. Silva BIOinformatics Summer 2008.
Design Issues of Prefetching Strategies for Heterogeneous Software DSM Author :Ssu-Hsuan Lu, Chien-Lung Chou, Kuang-Jui Wang, Hsiao-Hsi Wang, and Kuan-Ching.
Adaptive Sleep Scheduling for Energy-efficient Movement-predicted Wireless Communication David K. Y. Yau Purdue University Department of Computer Science.
Data Consolidation: A Task Scheduling and Data Migration Technique for Grid Networks Author: P. Kokkinos, K. Christodoulopoulos, A. Kretsis, and E. Varvarigos.
SERENA: SchEduling RoutEr Nodes Activity in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks Pascale Minet and Saoucene Mahfoudh INRIA, Rocquencourt Le Chesnay.
Network Weather Service. Introduction “NWS provides accurate forecasts of dynamically changing performance characteristics from a distributed set of metacomputing.
Euro-Par, HASTE: An Adaptive Middleware for Supporting Time-Critical Event Handling in Distributed Environments ICAC 2008 Conference June 2 nd,
Dynamic Load Balancing Tree and Structured Computations.
THE DEADLINE-BASED SCHEDULING OF DIVISIBLE REAL-TIME WORKLOADS ON MULTIPROCESSOR PLATFORMS Suriayati Chuprat Supervisors: Professor Dr Shaharuddin Salleh.
Name : Mamatha J M Seminar guide: Mr. Kemparaju. GRID COMPUTING.
1 Performance Impact of Resource Provisioning on Workflows Gurmeet Singh, Carl Kesselman and Ewa Deelman Information Science Institute University of Southern.
Spark on Entropy : A Reliable & Efficient Scheduler for Low-latency Parallel Jobs in Heterogeneous Cloud Huankai Chen PhD Student at University of Kent.
Introduction to Load Balancing:
Introduction | Model | Solution | Evaluation
Edinburgh Napier University
Chapter 6: CPU Scheduling
Improving the Freshness of NDN Forwarding States
CPU Scheduling G.Anuradha
Module 5: CPU Scheduling
Leach routing protocol in WSN
Processor Fundamentals
3: CPU Scheduling Basic Concepts Scheduling Criteria
Leach routing protocol in WSN
Chapter 6: CPU Scheduling
Lecture 2 Part 3 CPU Scheduling
Adaptive Data Refinement for Parallel Dynamic Programming Applications
Chapter 6: CPU Scheduling
Module 5: CPU Scheduling
Chapter 6: CPU Scheduling
Module 5: CPU Scheduling
Presentation transcript:

Fault-tolerant Adaptive Divisible Load Scheduling Xuan Lin, Sumanth J. V. Acknowledge: a few slides of DLT are from Thomas Robertazzi ’ s presentation

Outline  Introduction (DLT)  Adaptive Divisible Load Scheduling  Simulation  Conclusion

What is a Divisible Load?  A computational & networkable load that is arbitrarily partitionable (divisible) amongst processors and links.  There are no precedence relations between subtasks.  Communication cost between head-node and the processors should be considered.

Timing Diagram

m+1 unknows vs. m+1 Eqs.  Recursive equations:  Normalization equation:

Issues when applying the theory  How to decide the parameters in run-time?  The parameters may change during the computation.  Solution: Adaptive Strategy

Condor Grid Environment  Existing condor lab pool at UNL.  Processing capability of available nodes can vary significantly over time Consider anti-virus scans, OS updates. Can ignore short term variations.  Network dynamics can be quite significant.  Dynamic number of processors.

Condor Grid Environment  Unpredictable availability. Job suspension/migration.  Likely failure. Node reboot/crash.

Adapting DLT to Condor  DLT assumes that execution time for a fixed data set is constant for a given processor. Its predicted execution time can vary significantly from real execution time.

Adaptive Divisible Load Scheduling [D. Ghose et.al. 2005]  Two phases: probing phase and optimal loaddistribution phase  Probing and Delayed Distribution (PDD)

Probing and Delayed Distribution (PDD)  Total workload is divided into p equal pieces.  The first piece is used to do the probing.  The first piece is further divided into n equal pieces, and each processors are assigned one piece.  The second phase does not start until it receives all feedback.  When the second phase starts, since we know all the parameters of the system, DLF can guide us to do the optimal distribution.

Probing and Delayed Distribution (PDD)

Limitation of PDD  Most current work assumes a cluster computing environment Node failure is ignored. Dynamic change in number of processors is ignored. Once parameter estimation is completed, static environment is assumed. Not truly adaptive. If one or several processors give their feedback significantly slow than others, it will suffer a lot of idle time in the probing face.

Our Algorithm  I1- The group contains nodes that have sent back feedback, and we do optimal distribution to them.  I2- The group contains nodes that have sent back feedback, and we do not do optimal distribution at this round, but may do optimal distribution in the future.  I3- The group contains nodes that have not sent back feedback yet.  Two phases.

Our Algorithm – Probing Phase  Initially, I1,I2 are empty. I3 contains all the available processors.  The total workload is divided into p equal pieces.  Step1: One piece will be further divided into n equal pieces and sent to each processors.  Step2: When distribution is completed, check whether we get any feedback yet. If not, goto Step1.

Our Algorithm – Optimal Distribution Phase  Step3: Assume we get k new feedback, if we this is the first time we get feedback, simply add these processors to I1. Otherwise, goto Step4.  Step4: According to the feedback, we can calculate the speed of the processors and the network, calculate the available time of these processors. (These processors may not available now since in the probing phase, we may have sent several probing pieces.

Our Algorithm – Optimal Distribution Phase  Step5: If the available time of the processors smaller than the current maximum available time (we will define later), add them to group I1, otherwise, add them to group I2.  Step6: Assume the current size of group I1 is K, update their parameters (cpu speed and link speed), also calculate their available time and we record the maximum one as the current maximum available time, then we do the optimal distribution to these K processors. Repeat this step.

Simple Illustration

Our Algorithm  Scheduling Point are defined as every time when we finish distribution of current round.  Accept New Nodes: At each Scheduling Point, we will check if there are new processors available. If there are, we send probing pieces to them and add them to I3.  Fault Tolerance: At each Scheduling Point, we will check weather some processors are timeout. If so, delete those nodes.

Simulation  Initially Configuration Total workload =1000 Initially we have 8 nodes. p =100

Experiment1- Static Enviroment  Homogeneous cpu speed = 1000, network speed = 10  Heterogeneous processorcpunetwork

Experiment1

Experiment2

Experiment3

Experiment4 : New Nodes Available

Experiment5: Fault-Tolerance

Conclusion  If some nodes are significant slower than other nodes, our algorithm is better.  If the probing information is not accurate, our algorithm is better.  If in a long term, the network and the processor's average speeds are stable, single round algorithm will beat multiround.  Our algorithm has the ability to adapt new available processors.  Our algorithm is fault-tolerant.

Future work  More accurate distribution in the second round.  More evaluation to find the relation of the performance and the parameters.  Mechanism to decide weather we should accept the processors we discarded before.

 Questions ???  Thank you !