1. Scheduling a 100,000 Core Supercomputer for Maximum Utilization and Capability September 2010 Phil Andrews Patricia Kovatch Victor Hazlewood Troy Baer

2. Outline  Intro to NICS and Kraken  Weekly utilization averages >90% for 6+ weeks  How 90% utilization was accomplished on Kraken –System scheduling goals –Policy change based on some past work –Influencing end user behavior –Scheduling and utilization details: closer look at three specific weeks  Conclusion and Future Work 2

3.  JICS and NICS is a collaboration between UT and ORNL  UT awarded the NSF Track 2B ($65M)  Phased deployment of Cray XT systems with 1 PF in 2009  Total JICS funding ~$100M National Institute for Computational Sciences

4. Kraken on Oct 2009 #4 Fastest machine in the world (Top500 6/10) First academic petaflop Delivers over 60% of all NSF cycles –8,256 dual socket, 16GB memory nodes –2.6GHz 6-core AMD Istanbul processor per socket –1.03 Petaflops peak performance (99,072 cores) –Cray Seastar 2 Torus interconnect –3.3 Petabytes DDN disk (raw) –129 Terabytes memory –88 cabinets –2,200 sq ft 4

5. Kraken Cray XT5 Weekly Utilization October 2009 – June 2010 5 Date Percent

6. Kraken Weekly Utilization  Previous slide shows: –Weekly utilization over 90% for 7 of the last 9 weeks. Excellent! –Weekly utilization over 80% for 18 of the last 21 weeks. Very good! –Weekly utilization over 70% each week since implementing the new scheduling policy in mid January (red vertical line)  How was this accomplished?… 6

7. How was 90% utilization accomplished?  Taking a closer look at Kraken: –Scheduling goals –Policy –Influencing user behavior –Analysis of 3 specific weeks  Nov 9 - one month into production with new configuration  Jan 4 – during a typical slow month  Mar 1 – after implementation of policy change 7

8. System Scheduling Goals  1. Capability computing Allow “hero” jobs that run at or near the 99,072 maximum core size in order to bring new scientific results  2. Capacity computing Provide as many delivered floating point operations as possible to Kraken users (keep utilization high)  Typically these are antagonistic aspirations for a single system. Scheduling algorithms for capacity computing can lead to inefficiencies  Goal: Improve utilization of a large system while allowing large capability job runs. Attempt to do both capability and capacity computing!  Prior work @ SDSC led to a new approach 8

9. Policy  Normal approach to capability computing is to accept large jobs, include a weighting factor that increases with queue wait time, leading to eventual draining of the system to run the large capability job.  Major drawback is this can lead to reduction in the overall usage of the system  Next slide illustrates this 9

10. Typical Large System Utilization red arrows indicate system drain for capability job 10

11. Policy Change  Based on past work @ SDSC, our new approach would be to drain the system on a periodic basis and run the capability jobs in succession  Allow “dedicated” job runs: full machine with job owner access to Kraken only. This was needed for file system performance  Allow “capacity” job runs: near full machine without dedicated system access  Coincide the run of dedicated and capacity jobs during Preventative Maintenance (PM) time once a week 11

12. Policy Change  Reservation would be placed to have the scheduler drain the system prior to the PM  After PM dedicated jobs would be run in succession followed by capacity jobs run in succession  No PM, no dedicated jobs  No PM, capacity jobs limited to a specific time period  This had a drastic affect on system utilization as we will show! 12

13. Influencing User Behavior  To encourage capability computing jobs, NICS instituted a 50% discount for running dedicated and capacity jobs  Discounts were given post job completion 13

14. Utilization Analysis  The following selected weekly utilization charts show the dramatic affects of running such a large system and implementing the policy change for successive capability job runs 14

15. Utilization Prior to Policy Change 55% average 15

16. Utilization During Slow Period 34% average 16

17. Utilization After Policy Change 92% average, only one system drain 17

18. Conclusions  Running a large computational resource and allowing capability computing can coincide with high utilization if the right balance between goals, policy and user influences are struck. 18

19. Future Work  Automation of this type of scheduling policy  Methods to evaluate storage requirements of capability jobs prior to execution in attempt to prevent job failures due to file system use  Automation of dedicated run setup 19