1
Web 2.0, Grids
and Parallel Computin
Oxford Universit December 07 2007
Geoffrey Fox
Community Grids Laboratory, School of informatics Indiana University
http://www.infomall.org/multicore
2
Abstract of Web 2.0,
Grids and Parallel Computing
n We discuss the application of Web 2.0 to support scientific research (e-Science) and related e-moreorlessanything applications.
n Web 2.0 offers interesting technical approaches to build the core e-infrastructure (Cybere-infrastructure) as well as a host of interesting services exemplified by Facebook, YouTube, Amazon S3/EC2 and Google maps.
n We discuss why some of the original Grid goals of linking the world's computer systems may not be so relevant today and that interoperability is needed at the data and not always at the
infrastructure level.
n Web 2.0 may also support Parallel Programming 2.0 -- a better
Applications, Infrastructure,
Technologies
n This field is confused by inconsistent use of terminology; I define n Web Services, Grids and (aspects of) Web 2.0 (Enterprise 2.0) are
technologies
n Grids could be everything (Broad Grids implementing some sort
of managed web) or reserved for specific architectures like OGSA or Web Services (Narrow Grids)
n These technologies combine and compete to build electronic
infrastructures termed e-infrastructure or Cyberinfrastructure
n e-moreorlessanything is an emerging application area of broad
importance that is hosted on the infrastructures e-infrastructure
or Cyberinfrastructure
n e-Science or perhaps better e-Research is a special case of
4
e-moreorlessanything
n ‘e-Science is about global collaboration in key areas of science,
and the next generation of infrastructure that will enable it.’ from its inventor John Taylor Director General of Research Councils UK, Office of Science and Technology
n e-Science is about developing tools and technologies that allow
scientists to do ‘faster, better or different’ research
n Similarly e-Business captures an emerging view of corporations as
dynamic virtual organizations linking employees, customers and stakeholders across the world.
n This generalizes to e-moreorlessanything including presumably
e-OxfordResearch and e-OxfordEducation ….
n A deluge of data of unprecedented and inevitable size must be
managed and understood.
n People (see Web 2.0), computers, data (including sensors and
instruments) must be linked.
n On demand assignment of experts, computers, networks and
5
What is Cyberinfrastructure
n Cyberinfrastructure is (from NSF) infrastructure that
supports distributed science (e-Science)– data, people, computers
• Clearly core concept more general than Science
n Exploits Internet technology (Web2.0) adding (via Grid
technology) management, security, supercomputers etc.
n It has two aspects: parallel – low latency (microseconds)
between nodes and distributed – highish latency (milliseconds) between nodes
n Parallel needed to get high performance on individual large
simulations, data analysis etc.; must decompose problem
n Distributed aspect integrates already distinct components –
especially natural for data
n Cyberinfrastructure is in general a distributed collection of
parallel systems
n Cyberinfrastructure is made of services (originally Web
Service or Web Service Approach
n One uses GML, CML etc. to define the data structure in a system and one
uses services to capture “methods” or “programs”
n In eScience, important services fall in four classes
• Simulations
• Data access, storage, federation, discovery • Filters for data mining and manipulation
• General capabilities like collaboration, security etc.
n Services could use something like WSDL (Web Service Definition Language)
to define interoperable interfaces but Web 2.0 follows old library practice: one just specifies interface
n Service Interface (WSDL) establishes a “contract” independent of
implementation between two services or a service and a client
n Services should be loosely coupled which normally means they are coarse
grain
n Services will be composed (linked together) by mashups (typically scripts) or
workflow (often XML – BPEL)
Relevance of Web 2.0
n
They say that Web
1.0
was a
read-only
Web while Web
2.0
is the wildly
read-write collaborative
Web
n
Web 2.0
can
help e-Science
in many ways
n
Its tools can enhance scientific collaboration, i.e.
effectively
support virtual organizations
, in different
ways from grids
n
The popularity of Web 2.0 can provide
high quality
technologies and software
that (due to large
commercial investment) can be very useful in e-Science
and preferable to Grid or Web Service solutions
n
The
usability
and
participatory
nature of Web 2.0 can
bring science and its informatics to a
broader audience
n
Web 2.0 can even help the emerging challenge of using
multicore
chips i.e. in improving
parallel computing
8
“Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006
n Extracted from http://web2.wsj2.com/ n All important capabilities for e-Science n Social Networking
n Start Pages
n Social Bookmarkin
n Peer Production News
n Social Media Sharing
n Online Storage
Web 2.0, Grids and Web Services I
n Web Services have clearly defined protocols (SOAP) and a well
defined mechanism (WSDL) to define service interfaces
• There is good .NET and Java support
• The so-called WS-* specifications provide a rich sophisticated but
complicated standard set of capabilities for security, fault tolerance, meta-data, discovery, notification etc.
n “Narrow Grids” build on Web Services and provide a robust
managed environment with growing but still small adoption in Enterprise systems and distributed science (so called e-Science)
n Web 2.0 supports a similar architecture to Web services but has
developed in a more chaotic but remarkably successful fashion with a service architecture with a variety of protocols including those of Web and Grid services
• Over 500 Interfaces defined at http://www.programmableweb.com/apis
n Web 2.0 also has many well known capabilities with Google
Maps and Amazon Compute/Storage services of clear general relevance
n There are also Web 2.0 services supporting novel collaboration
Web 2.0 Systems like Grids have Portals, Services, Resources
n
Captures the incredible development of interactive
Web 2.0, Grids and Web Services II
n I once thought Web Services were inevitable but this is no longer
clear to me
n Web services are complicated, slow and non functional
• WS-Security is unnecessarily slow and pedantic
(canonicalization of XML)
• WS-RM (Reliable Messaging) seems to have poor adoption
and doesn’t work well in collaboration
• WSDM (distributed management) specifies a lot
n There are de facto Web 2.0 standards like Google Maps and
powerful suppliers like Google/Microsoft which “define the architectures/interfaces”
n One can easily combine SOAP (Web Service) based
Distribution of APIs and Mashups per
Protocol
REST SOAP XML-RPC REST,
XML-RPC XML-RPC,REST, SOAP
REST,
SOAP JS Other
google maps netvibes live.com virtual earth google search amazon S3 amazon ECS flickr ebay youtube 411syncdel.icio.us yahoo! search yahoo! geocoding technorati yahoo! images trynt yahoo! local Number of Mashups Number of APIs
Too much Computing?
n Historically both grids and parallel computing have tried to
increase computing capabilities by
• Optimizing performance of codes at cost of re-usability
• Exploiting all possible CPU’s such as Graphics
co-processors and “idle cycles” (across administrative domains)
• Linking central computers together such as NSF/DoE/DoD
supercomputer networks without clear user requirements
n Next Crisis in technology area will be the opposite problem –
commodity chips will be 32-128way parallel in 5 years time and we currently have no idea how to use them on commodity systems – especially on clients
• Only 2 releases of standard software (e.g. Office) in this
time span so need solutions that can be implemented in next 3-5 years
n Intel RMS analysis: Gaming and Generalized decision
Too much Data to the Rescue?
n Multicore servers have clear “universal parallelism” as many
users can access and use machines simultaneously
n Maybe also need application parallelism (e.g. datamining) as
needed on client machines
n Over next years, we will be submerged of course in data
deluge
• Scientific observations for e-Science • Local (video, environmental) sensors
• Data fetched from Internet defining users interests
n Maybe data-mining of this “too much data” will use up the
“too much computing” both for science and commodity PC’s
• PC will use this data(-mining) to be intelligent user
assistant?
Where did Narrow Grids and Web Services go wrong?
n Interoperability Interfaces will be for data not for
infrastructure
• Google, Amazon, TeraGrid, European Grids will not
interoperate at the resource or compute (processing) level
but rather at the data streams flowing in and out of
independent Grid clouds
• Data focus is consistent with Semantic Grid/Web but not
clear if latter has learnt the usability message of Web 2.0
n Lack of detailed standards in Web 2.0 preferable to industry
who can get proprietary advantage inside their clouds
n One needs to share computing, data, people in
e-moreorlessanything, Grids initially focused on computing but
data and people are more important
n eScience is healthy as is e-moreorlessanything
n Most Grids are solving wrong problem at wrong point in stack
Information System Architecture
n The Party Line approach to Information Infrastructure is clear
– one creates a Cyberinfrastructure consisting of distributed services accessed by portals/gadgets/gateways/RSS feeds
n Services include:
• “Original data”
• Transformations or filters implementing DIKW (Data Information
Knowledge Wisdom) lattice
• Some filters could correspond to large simulations
• Final “Decision Support” step converting wisdom into action • Generic services such as security, profiles etc.
n Infrastructure will be set up as a System of Systems (Grids of
Grids)
n Services and/or Grids just accept some form of DIKW and
produce another form of DIKW
• “Original data” has no explicit input; just output
n e-moreorlessanything Interoperability at DIKW interface not at
Database
S S
S
S SS
S
S SS SS SS
F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F
S SF
F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F
S Portal
F S
Filter Servic Data in Data out
Sensor or Data Interchange
Service
Anothe Grid
Raw Data Data Information Knowledge Wisdom Decisions S S S S Anothe Service S S Anothe
Grid S S
Anothe Grid S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S F S Inter-S ervi ce Messag es F
S Filter Service
Storag Cloud Comput
Cloud
S
S SS SS S
Some Web 2.0 Activities at IU
n
Use of
Blogs
, RSS feeds, Wikis etc.
n
Use of
Mashups
for Cheminformatics Grid workflows
n
Moving from
Portlets
to
Gadgets
in portals (or at least
supporting both)
n
Use of
Connotea
to produce tagged document collections
such as htt
p://www.connotea.org/user/crmc for
parallel
computing
n
Semantic Research Grid
integrates multiple tagging and
search systems and copes with overlapping inconsistent
annotations
n
MSI-CIEC portal
augments Connotea to tag a mix of
URL and URI’s e.g. NSF TeraGrid use, PI’s and
Proposals
• Hopes to support collaboration (for Minority Serving
Institution faculty)
Use blog to create posts.
Semantic Research Grid (SRG)
n Integrates tagging and search system that allows users to use
multiple sites and consistently integrate them with traditional citation databases
n We built a mashup linking to del.icio.us, CiteULike, Connotea
allowing exchange of tags between sites and between local repositories
n Repositories also link to local sources (PubsOnline) and Google
Scholar (GS) and Windows Academic Live (WLA)
• GS has number of cited publications.
• WLA has Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
n We implement a rather more powerful access control mechanism n We build heuristic tools to mine “web lists” for citations
n We have an “event” based architecture (consistency model)
allowing change actions to be preserved and selectively changed
• Supports integrating different inconsistent views of a given document and
its updates on different tagging systems
Existing User Interface
Semantic Scholars Grid
Example
n Parallel
Computing Collection selected on
Cell Tag
n So far no clear
“winner” in tagging space
n Maybe
CiteUlike with different
metadata better
n How do I
preserve
del.icio.us Tags
Download to Local System
MSI-CIEC Portal
MSI-CIEC
NSF Grants Tag System
n
NSF has the ability to get information (in XML) on all of the
grants a particular person worked on
n
We downloaded, parsed, and bookmarked this info using a
little scavenger robot.
• Each grant is represented by a bookmark and tagged with
relevant information in MSI-CIEC Portal
• Grant tags point to URLs of the NSF award page.
n
The investigators
are imported as users
n
Each has a bookmark for each project they worked on
• They are also represented in the tags of these projects.
n
Can now
form research collaborations
by linking
researchers with common tags
n
Hopefully will enable
broader collaborations
and not
Superior (from broad usage)
technologies of Web 2.
Mash-ups can replace Workflo
Gadgets can replace Portlet
28
Mashups v Workflow?
n Mashup Tools are reviewed at
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=63
n Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox
http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/Workflow-overview.pdf
n Both include scripting
in PHP, Python, sh etc. as both implement
distributed
programming at level of services
n Mashups use all types
of service interfaces and perhaps do not have the potential
robustness (security) of Grid service approach
n Mashups typically
29
Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science
n Work with Scripps Institute
n Grid services controlled by scripting workflow process real time data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern
California
Streaming Data Support
Transformations Data Checking
Hidden Marko Datamining (JPL)
Display (GIS)
NASA GPS
Earthquake
Grid Workflow Data Assimilation in Earth Science
n Grid services triggered by abnormal events and controlled by workflow process realtime data from radar and high resolution simulations for tornado forecasts
Typical graphical interface to service
composition
Taverna another well known Grid/Web Service workflow tool
Web 2.0 Mashups
and APIs
n
http://www.programmable
web.com/apis
has (Sept 12
2007) 2312 Mashups and
511
Web 2.0 APIs
and with
GoogleMaps the most often
used in Mashups
n
This is the
Web 2.0 UDDI
The List of
Web 2.0 API’s
n
Each site has API and
its features
n
Divided into broad
categories
n
Only a few used a lot
(
49 API’s
used in
10
or more
mashups
)
n
RSS feed of new APIs
n
Google maps
dominates but
Now to Portals
33
Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake Grid
The Portal is built from portlets –providing user interface fragments for each service that are composed into the full interface – uses OGCE technology as does planetary science VLAB portal with University of Minnesota
QuakeSim has a typical Grid technology portal
Such Server side Portlet-based approaches to portals are being challenged by client side gadgets from Web 2.0
Portlets aggregated on server using Java analogous to JSP, JSF
Gadgets aggregated on client using Javascript analogous to “classic” DHTML
Mashups can still be totally server side like workflow
34
Portlets v. Google Gadgets
n
Portals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with
software like GridSphere integrating these on the
server-side into a single web-page
n
Google (at least) offers the Google sidebar and Google
home page which support Web 2.0 services and do not
use a server side aggregator
n
Google is more user friendly!
n
The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model
for promoting development in the world-wide
distributed collection of Web 2.0 developers
n
I guess Web 2.0 model will win!
Typical Google Gadget Structure
… Lots of HTML and JavaScript </Content> </Module>
Portlets build User Interfaces by combining fragments in a standalone Java Server
Google Gadgets build User Interfaces by combining fragments with JavaScript on the client
Google Gadgets are an example of Start Page (Web 2.0 term for portals) technolog
The Ten areas covered by the 60 core WS-*
Specifications
WSRP (Remote Portlets) 10: Portals and User
Interfaces
WS-Policy, WS-Agreement 9: Policy and Agreements
WSDM, WS-Management, WS-Transfer 8: Management
WSRF, WS-MetadataExchange, WS-Context 7: System Metadata and State
UDDI, WS-Discovery 6: Service Discovery
WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-Federation, SAML, WS-SecureConversation
5: Security
BPEL, WS-Choreography, WS-Coordination 4: Workflow and
Transactions
WS-Notification, WS-Eventing (Publish-Subscribe)
3: Notification
WS-Addressing, WS-MessageDelivery; Reliable Messaging WSRM; Efficient Messaging MOTM 2: Service Internet
XML, WSDL, SOAP 1: Core Service Model
WS-* Areas and Web 2.0
Start Pages, AJAX and Widgets(Netvibes) Gadgets 10: Portals and User
Interfaces
Service dependent. Processed by application 9: Policy and Agreements
WS-Transfer style Protocols GET PUT etc. 8:
Management==Interaction
Processed by application – no system state –
Microformats are a universal metadata approach 7: System Metadata and
State
http://www.programmableweb.com 6: Service Discovery
SSL, HTTP Authentication/Authorization, OpenID is Web 2.0 Single Sign on
5: Security
Mashups, Google MapReduce
Scripting with PHP JavaScript …. 4: Workflow and
Transactions (no
Transactions in Web 2.0)
Hard with HTTP without polling– JMS perhaps? 3: Notification
No special QoS. Use JMS or equivalent? 2: Service Internet
XML becomes optional but still useful SOAP becomes JSON RSS ATOM
WSDL becomes REST with API as GET PUT etc. Axis becomes XmlHttpRequest
1: Core Service Model
Web 2.0
can also help
address
long standing difficulties
with
parallel programming
environments
Too much computing addresses too much data an implies need for multicore datamining algorithms
Clustering
Principal Component Analysis (SVD)
Expectation-Maximization EM (mixture models)
Multicore SALSA at CGL
n Service Aggregated Linked Sequential Activities
n Aims to link parallel and distributed (Grid) computing by
developing parallel applications as services and not as programs or libraries
• Improve traditionally poor parallel programming
development environments
n Developing set of services (library) of multicore parallel data
mining algorithms
n Looking at Intel list of algorithms (and all previous experience),
we find there are two styles of “micro” parallelism
• Dynamic search as in integer programming, Hidden Markov Methods
(and computer chess); irregular synchronization with dynamic threads
• “MPI Style” i.e. several threads running typically in SPMD (Single
Program Multiple Data); collective synchronization of all threads together
n Most Intel RMS are “MPI Style” and very close to scientific
Scalable Parallel Components
n There are no agreed high-level programming environments for
building library members that are broadly applicable.
n However lower level approaches where experts define
parallelism explicitly are available and have clear performance models.
n These include MPI for messaging or just locks within a single
shared memory.
n There are several patterns to support here including the
collective synchronization of MPI, dynamic irregular thread parallelism needed in search algorithms, and more specialized cases like discrete event simulation.
n We use Microsoft CC
There is MPI style messaging and ..
n OpenMP annotation or Automatic Parallelism of existing
software is practical way to use those pesky cores with existing code
• As parallelism is typically not expressed precisely, one needs luck to get
good performance
• Remember writing in Fortran, C, C#, Java … throws away information
about parallelism
n HPCS Languages should be able to properly express parallelism
but we do not know how efficient and reliable compilers will be
• High Performance Fortran failed as language expressed a subset of
parallelism and compilers did not give predictable performance
n PGAS (Partitioned Global Address Space) like UPC, Co-array
Fortran, Titanium, HPJava
• One decomposes application into parts and writes the code for each
component but use some form of global index
• Compiler generates synchronization and messaging
• PGAS approach should work but has never been widely used – presumably
Summary of micro-parallelism
n
On
new applications
, use MPI/locks with explicit
user decomposition
n
A subset of applications can use “
data parallel
”
compilers which follow in HPF footsteps
•
Graphics Chips and Cell processor motivate such
special compilers but not clear how many
applications can be done this way
n
OpenMP and/or Compiler-based Automatic
Composition of Parallel Components
n The composition (macro-parallelism) step has many excellent solutions
as this does not have the same drastic synchronization and correctness constraints as one has for scalable kernels
• Unlike micro-parallelism step which has no very good solutions
n Task parallelism in languages such as C++, C#, Java and Fortran90;
n General scripting languages like PHP Perl Python
n Domain specific environments like Matlab and Mathematica
n Functional Languages like MapReduce, F#
n HeNCE, AVS and Khoros from the past and CCA from DoE
n Web Service/Grid Workflow like Taverna, Kepler, InforSense KDE,
Pipeline Pilot (from SciTegic) and the LEAD environment built at Indiana University.
n Web solutions like Mash-ups and DSS
n Many scientific applications use MPI for the coarse grain composition
as well as fine grain parallelism but this doesn’t seem elegant
n The new languages from Darpa’s HPCS program support task
parallelism (composition of parallel components) decoupling
“Service Aggregation” in
SALSA
n
Kernels and Composition must be supported both
inside
chips
(the multicore problem) and
between machines
in
clusters (the traditional parallel computing problem) or
Grids.
n
The scalable parallelism (kernel) problem is typically only
interesting on true parallel computers as the algorithms
require low communication latency.
n
However
composition is similar in both parallel and
distributed scenarios
and it seems useful to allow the use of
Grid and Web composition tools for the parallel problem.
•
This should allow parallel computing to exploit large
investment in service programming environments
n
Thus in SALSA we express parallel kernels not as traditional
libraries but as (some variant of) services so they can be used
by non expert programmers
n
For
parallelism expressed in CCR
,
DSS
represents the
Parallel Programming 2.0
n
Web 2.0 Mashups
will (by definition the largest
market) drive
composition tools
for Grid, web and
parallel programming
n
Parallel Programming 2.0
will build on Mashup tools
like Yahoo Pipes and Microsoft Popfly
CICC Chemical Informatics and Cyberinfrastructure Collaboratory Web Service Infrastructure
Portal Services
RSS Feeds User Profiles
Collaboration as in Sakai
Core Grid Services
Service Registry
Job Submission and Management
Local Clusters
IU Big Red, TeraGrid, Open Science Grid
Varuna.net
Quantum Chemistry
OSCAR Document Analysis InChI Generation/Search
Computational Chemistry (Gamess, Jaguar etc.)
Clustering Data
n Cheminformatics was tested successfully with small datasets and
compared to commercial tools
n Cluster on properties of chemicals from high throughput
screening results to chemical properties (structure, molecular weight etc.)
n Applying to PubChem (and commercial databases) that have
6-20 million compounds
• Comparing traditional fingerprint (binary properties) with real-valued
properties
n GIS uses publicly available Census data; in particular the 2000
Census aggregated in 200,000 Census Blocks covering Indiana
• 100MB of data
n Initial clustering done on simple attributes given in this data
• Total population and number of Asian, Hispanic and Renters
n Working with POLIS Center at Indianapolis on clustering of
SAVI (Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators) attributes at http://www.savi.org) for community and decision makers
Where are we?
n We have deterministically annealed clustering running well on
8-core (2-processor quad 8-core) Intel systems using C# and Microsoft Robotics Studio CCR/DSS
n Could also run on multicore-based parallel machines but didn’t
do this (is there a large Windows quad core cluster on TeraGrid?)
• This would also be efficient on large problems
n Applied to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and census
data
• Could be an interesting application on future broadly deployed PC’s
• Visualize nicely on Google Maps (and presumably Microsoft Virtual Earth)
n Applied to several Cheminformatics problems and have parallel
efficiency but visualization harder as in 150-1024 (or more) dimensions
n Will develop a family of such parallel annealing data-mining
tools where basic approach known for
• Clustering
49
Microsoft CCR
• Supports exchange of messages between threads using named ports
• FromHandler: Spawn threads without reading ports
• Receive: Each handler reads one item from a single port
• MultipleItemReceive: Each handler reads a prescribed number of items of a given type from a given port. Note items in a port can be general structures but all must have same type.
• MultiplePortReceive: Each handler reads a one item of a given type from multiple ports.
• JoinedReceive: Each handler reads one item from each of two ports. The items can be of different type.
• Choice: Execute a choice of two or more port-handler pairings
• Interleave: Consists of a set of arbiters (port -- handler pairs) of 3 types that are Concurrent, Exclusive or Teardown (called at end for clean up). Concurrent arbiters are run concurrently but
exclusive handlers are
Preliminary Results
•
Parallel Deterministic Annealing Clustering
in
C# with
speed-up of 7
on Intel 2 quadcore
systems
•
Analysis of performance of
Java, C, C# in
MPI
and dynamic threading with XP, Vista,
Windows Server, Fedora, Redhat
on
Intel/AMD systems
•
Study of
cache effects
coming with MPI
thread-based parallelism
•
Study of
execution time fluctuations
in
25.8
4 Thread
CCR
XP Intel4(4 core 2.8 Ghz)
16.3 4 Thread CCR XP 39.3 4 Process MPICH2 99.4 4 Process mpiJava 152 4 Process MPJE Redhat 185 4 Process MPJE XP AMD4
(4 core 2.19 Ghz)
20.2 8 Thread CCR (C#) Vista 100 8 Process mpiJava Fedora 142 8 Process MPJE Fedora 170 8 Process MPJE Vista Intel8b
(8 core 2.66 Ghz)
64.2 8 Process MPICH2 111 8 Process mpiJava 157 8 Process MPJE Fedora Intel8c:gf20
(8 core 2.33 Ghz)
4.21 8 Process Nemesis 39.3 8 Process MPICH2: Fast 40.0 8 Process MPICH2 (C) 181 8 Process MPJE (Java) Redhat Intel8c:gf12
(8 core 2.33 Ghz) (in 2 chips)
MPI Exchange Latency Parallelism
Grains Runtime
OS Machine
MPI Exchange Latency in µs (20-30 µs computation between messaging)
SALSA Performance
The macroscopic inter-service DSS Overhead is about 35µs
DSS is composed from CCR threads that hav
4µs overhead for spawning threads in dynamic search applications
Parallel Multicor
Deterministic Annealing
Clustering
Parallel Overhea on 8 Threads Intel 8b
Speedup = 8/(1+Overhead)
10000/(Grain Size n = points per core) Overhead = Constant1 + Constant2/n
Constant1 = 0.05 to 0.1 (Client Windows) due to threa runtime fluctuations
10 Clusters
Renters Total
Asian
Hispanic
Renters
IUB Purdue
10 Clusters
Total
Asian
Hispanic
Renters
30 Clusters
Clustering is typical of data mining methods that are needed for tomorrow’s clients or servers bathed in a data rich environment
Clustering Census data in Indiana on dual quadcore processors
Implemented with CCR and DS
Use deterministic annealing that uses multiscale method to avoid local minima
Parallel Multicore
Deterministic Annealing
Clustering
“Constant1”
Increasing number of clusters decreases communication/memory bandwidth overheads
Parallel Overhead for large (2M points) Indiana Census clusterin on 8 Threads Intel 8
Parallel Multicore
Deterministic Annealing
Clustering
“Constant1”
Increasing number of clusters decreases communication/memory bandwidth overheads
Parallel Overhead for subset of PubChem clustering on 8 Threads (Intel 8b
The fluctuating overhead is reduced to 2% (as bits not doubles
Intel 8-core C# with 80 Clusters: Vista Run
Time Fluctuations for Clustering Kernel
• 2 Quadcore Processors
• This is average of standard deviation of run time of the 8
threads between messaging synchronization points
Intel 8 core with 80 Clusters: Redhat Run
Time Fluctuations for Clustering Kernel
•
This is average of standard deviation of run time
of the 8 threads between messaging
synchronization points
Looking to the Future
n Web 2.0 has momentum as it is driven by success of social web
sites and the user friendly protocols attracting many developers
of mashups
n Grids momentum driven by the success of eScience and the
commercial web service thrusts largely aimed at Enterprise
n We expect applications such as business and military where
predictability and robustness important might be built on a Web Service (Narrow Grid) core with perhaps Web 2.0 functionality enhancements
• But even this Web Service application may not survive
n Multicore usability driving Parallel Programming 2.0
n Simplicity, supporting many developers are forces pressuring
Grids!
n Robustness and coping with unstructured blooming of a 1000
flowers are forces pressuring Web 2.0
n Need work on Grid Cloud Data Interchange standards and