The Nas Parallel Benchmarks

TITLE: The NAS Parallel Benchmarks AUTHOR: David H Bailey 1 ACRONYMS: NAS, NPB DEFINITION: The NAS Parallel Benchmarks (NPB) are a suite of parallel computer per- formance benchmarks. They were originally developed at the NASA Ames Re- search Center in 1991 to assess high-end parallel supercomputers [?]. Although they are no longer used as widely as they once were for comparing high-end sys- tem performance, they continue to be studied and analyzed a great deal in the high-performance computing community. The acronym “NAS” originally stood for the Numerical Aeronautical Simulation Program at NASA Ames. The name of this organization was subsequently changed to the Numerical Aerospace Sim- ulation Program, and more recently to the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Center, although the acronym remains “NAS.” The developers of the original NPB suite were David H. Bailey, Eric Barszcz, John Barton, David Browning, Russell Carter, LeoDagum, Rod Fatoohi, Samuel Fineberg, Paul Frederickson, Thomas Lasinski, Rob Schreiber, Horst Simon, V. Venkatakrishnan and Sisira Weeratunga. DISCUSSION: The original NAS Parallel Benchmarks consisted of eight individual bench- mark problems, each of which focused on some aspect of scientific computing. The principal focus was in computational aerophysics, although most of these benchmarks have much broader relevance, since in a much larger sense they are typical of many real-world scientific computing applications. The NPB suite grew out of the need for a more rational procedure to select new supercomputers for acquisition by NASA. The emergence of commercially available highly parallel computer systems in the late 1980s offered an attrac- tive alternative to parallel vector supercomputers that had been the mainstay of high-end scientific computing. However, the introduction of highly parallel systems was accompanied by a regrettable level of hype, not only on the part of the commercial vendors but even, in some cases, by scientists using the sys- tems. As a result, it was difficult to discern whether the new systems offered any fundamental performance advantage over vector supercomputers, and, if so, which of the parallel offerings would be most useful in real-world scientific computation. 1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA, dhbailey@lbl.gov. Supported in part by the Director, Office of Computational and Technology Research, Division of Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy, under contract number DE-AC02-05CH11231.

[1]  H. Lomax Stable implicit and explicit numerical methods for integrating quasi-linear differential equations with parasitic-stiff and parasitic-saddle eigenvalues , 1968 .

[2]  Marshall C. Pease,et al.  An Adaptation of the Fast Fourier Transform for Parallel Processing , 1968, JACM.

[3]  O. Axelsson A generalized SSOR method , 1972 .

[4]  R. F. Warming,et al.  On the construction and application of implicit factored schemes for conservation laws , 1978 .

[5]  T. Pulliam,et al.  A diagonal form of an implicit approximate-factorization algorithm , 1981 .

[6]  J. Steger,et al.  Flux vector splitting of the inviscid gasdynamic equations with application to finite-difference methods , 1981 .

[7]  A. Jameson,et al.  Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge Kutta time stepping schemes , 1981 .

[8]  Paul N. Swarztrauber,et al.  FFT algorithms for vector computers , 1984, Parallel Comput..

[9]  F. Alan Andersen,et al.  The American National Standards Institute , 1984, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[10]  T. Chan,et al.  Nonlinearly Preconditioned Krylov Subspace Methods for Discrete Newton Algorithms , 1984 .

[11]  David H. Bailey,et al.  The NAS kernel benchmark program , 1985 .

[12]  F. H. Mcmahon,et al.  The Livermore Fortran Kernels: A Computer Test of the Numerical Performance Range , 1986 .

[13]  Ramesh C. Agarwal,et al.  Fourier Transform and Convolution Subroutines for the IBM 3090 Vector Facility , 1986, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[14]  T. Pulliam Efficient solution methods for the Navier-Stokes equations , 1986 .

[15]  I. Duff,et al.  Direct Methods for Sparse Matrices , 1987 .

[16]  David H. Bailey A High-Performance FFT Algorithm for Vector Supercomputers , 1987, PPSC.

[17]  Jack J. Dongarra,et al.  Performance of various computers using standard linear equations software in a FORTRAN environment , 1988, CARN.

[18]  P. Olsson,et al.  Boundary modifications of the dissipation operators for the three-dimensional Euler equations , 1989 .

[19]  Geoffrey C. Fox,et al.  The Perfect Club Benchmarks: Effective Performance Evaluation of Supercomputers , 1989, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[20]  D. Kwak,et al.  LU-SGS implicit algorithm for three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with source term , 1989 .

[21]  George Cybenko,et al.  Supercomputer performance evaluation and the Perfect Benchmarks , 1990, ICS '90.

[22]  David H. Bailey,et al.  The Nas Parallel Benchmarks , 1991, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[23]  David H. Bailey,et al.  Twelve ways to fool the masses when giving performance results on parallel computers , 1991 .

[24]  David H. Bailey,et al.  NAS parallel benchmark results , 1993, IEEE Parallel & Distributed Technology: Systems & Applications.

[25]  B. Leer,et al.  Flux-vector splitting for the Euler equations , 1997 .

[26]  P. Roe Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes , 1997 .

[27]  E. Süli,et al.  Numerical Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations , 2021, Foundations of Space Dynamics.