Application Characterization Using Oxbow Toolkit and PADS Infrastructure

Characterizing the behavior of a scientific application and its associated proxy application is essential for determining whether the proxy application actually does mimic the full application. To support our ongoing characterization activities, we have developed the Oxbow toolkit and an associated data store infrastructure for collecting, storing, and querying this characterization information. This paper presents recent updates to the Oxbow toolkit and introduces the Oxbow project's Performance Analytics Data Store (PADS). To demonstrate the possible insights when using the toolkit and data store, we compare the characterizations of several full and proxy applications, along with the High Performance Linpack (HPL) and High Performance Conjugate Gradient (HPCG) benchmarks. Using techniques such as cluster visualizations of PADS data across many experiments, we found that the results show unexpected similarities and differences between proxy applications, and a greater similarity of proxy applications to HPCG than to HPL along many dimensions.

[1]  Allen D. Malony,et al.  The Tau Parallel Performance System , 2006, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[2]  Bernd Mohr,et al.  The Scalasca performance toolset architecture , 2010, Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp..

[3]  Jack J. Dongarra,et al.  MIAMI: A framework for application performance diagnosis , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS).

[4]  Richard F. Barrett,et al.  Exascale design space exploration and co-design , 2014, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[5]  Dong Li,et al.  Quantifying Architectural Requirements of Contemporary Extreme-Scale Scientific Applications , 2013, PMBS@SC.

[6]  Roy Fielding,et al.  Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures"; Doctoral dissertation , 2000 .

[7]  Nathan R. Tallent,et al.  HPCTOOLKIT: tools for performance analysis of optimized parallel programs , 2010, Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp..

[8]  Guillaume Mercier,et al.  hwloc: A Generic Framework for Managing Hardware Affinities in HPC Applications , 2010, 2010 18th Euromicro Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-based Processing.

[9]  Harish Patil,et al.  Pin: building customized program analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation , 2005, PLDI '05.

[10]  Scott Pakin Byfl: analysis of low-level application characteristics , 2011 .

[11]  John Shalf,et al.  On the Role of Co-design in High Performance Computing , 2012, High Performance Computing Workshop.

[12]  Adolfy Hoisie,et al.  Palm: easing the burden of analytical performance modeling , 2014, ICS '14.

[13]  John Shalf,et al.  The International Exascale Software Project roadmap , 2011, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[14]  Allen D. Malony,et al.  Design and implementation of a parallel performance data management framework , 2005, 2005 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP'05).

[15]  Courtenay T. Vaughan,et al.  Investigating the Impact of the Cielo Cray XE6 Architecture on Scientific Application Codes , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing Workshops and Phd Forum.