A PERFORMANCE COMPARISON USING HPC BENCHMARKS: WINDOWS HPC SERVER - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
a performance comparison using hpc benchmarks windows hpc
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A PERFORMANCE COMPARISON USING HPC BENCHMARKS: WINDOWS HPC SERVER - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 10, 2023 11 likes •282 views

A PERFORMANCE COMPARISON USING HPC BENCHMARKS: WINDOWS HPC SERVER 2008 AND RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX 5 R. Henschel, S. Teige, H. Li, J. Doleschal , M. S. Mueller October 2010 Contents HPC at Indiana University FutureGrid

slide-1
SLIDE 1

A PERFORMANCE COMPARISON USING HPC BENCHMARKS: WINDOWS HPC SERVER 2008 AND RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX 5

  • R. Henschel, S. Teige, H. Li, J. Doleschal , M. S. Mueller

October 2010

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Robert Henschel

Contents

  • HPC at Indiana University
  • FutureGrid
  • Benchmarking Setup
  • Hardware
  • Results
  • SPEC MPI2007 medium
  • NSF Acceptance Test Suite
  • HPCC
  • Conclusion
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Robert Henschel

HPC at Indiana University

  • Indiana University
  • Founded in 1820
  • 8 campuses
  • Bloomington and Indianapolis
  • 80,000 students, 7,000 faculty
  • HPC systems are operated by Research Technologies of

University Information Technology Services

  • Open access to graduate students, faculty and staff
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Robert Henschel

HPC at Indiana University

  • IU is one of 11 TeraGrid resource providers
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Robert Henschel

HPC at Indiana University

  • IU hosts the Open Science Grid (OSG) operations center
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Robert Henschel

FutureGrid

  • $15 Mio. NSF Track 2 D award (2009)
  • Support the research on the future of distributed, grid,

and cloud computing.

  • Build a robustly managed simulation environment and

testbed to support the development and early use in science of new technologies at all levels of the software stack: from networking to middleware to scientific applications.

  • Mimic TeraGrid and/or general parallel and distributed

systems.

  • FutureGrid is a (small 5600 core) Science Cloud but it is

more accurately a virtual machine based simulation environment.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Robert Henschel

FutureGrid

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Robert Henschel

Benchmarking Setup

  • SPEC MPI2007 medium
  • NSF Acceptance Test Suite
  • HPCC
  • Windows HPC Server 2008
  • RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.4
  • IBM System x iDataPlex dx340 cluster
  • Intel Compiler Version 11.1 (incl. MKL)
  • OpenMPI 1.3.1 / MS MPI 2008
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Robert Henschel

Hardware

  • IBM System x iDataPlex dx340

– 84 nodes – 64 used for benchmarking

  • Intel Xeon L5420 at 2.5 GHz
  • 32 GByte of memory per node
  • Mellanox MT26418 DDR Infiniband
  • Cisco SFS 7024D switch
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Robert Henschel

Benchmarks

  • SPEC MPI2007 (medium)
  • NSF Acceptance Test Suite
  • HPCC
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • Developed by the SPEC High Performance Group
  • Includes 13 MPI parallel applications
  • Computational fluid dynamics, molecular dynamics

Electromagnetism, geophysics, ray tracing, and hydrodynamics

  • Version 1.1, released October 2008
  • Results were published on the SPEC website, after

having been reviewed by the HPG

  • http://www.spec.org/mpi2007/results/res2010q1/
  • First published results running SPEC MPIM2007 on

Windows (HPC Server 2008)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • Overall performance

32 64 128 256 512 5 10 15 20 25 30

SPEC MPIM2007 Score from 32 to 512 Cores

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • No Difference in performance, 6 applications

32 64 128 256 512 10 20 30 40 50 60

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for TACHYON

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • RHEL5 outperforms WinHPC in 5 applications

32 64 128 256 512 5 10 15 20 25

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for SOCORRO

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • RHEL5 outperforms WinHPC in 5 applications

32 64 128 256 512 5 10 15 20 25

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for SOCORRO

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

32 64 128 256 512 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for FDS4

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • RHEL5 outperforms WinHPC in 5 applications

32 64 128 256 512 5 10 15 20 25

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for SOCORRO

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

32 64 128 256 512 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for FDS4

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

32 64 128 256 512 2 4 6 8 10 12

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for POP2

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • WinHPC outperforms RHEL5 in 2 applications

32 64 128 256 512 10 20 30 40 50 60

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for WRF

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Robert Henschel

SPEC MPIM2007

  • WinHPC outperforms RHEL5 in 2 applications

32 64 128 256 512 10 20 30 40 50 60

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for WRF

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

32 64 128 256 512 5 10 15 20 25 30

SPEC MPIM2007 Score for LESLIE3D

WinHPC RHEL5

Cores SPEC MPIM2007 Score

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Robert Henschel

NSF Acceptance Test Suite

  • NSF Track 2 program
  • Sun constellation at TACC, Cray XT5 at University of

Tennessee, FutureGrid

  • Benchmarking Information Referenced in NSF 05-625

“High Performance Computing System Acquisition: Towards a Petascale Computing Environment for Science and Engineering” (2005)

  • http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0605/nsf0605.jsp
  • Initially comprised of HPCC, 6 applications, SPIOBENCH
  • Now, just HPCC and 4 applications
  • PARATEC, HOMME, MILC, WRF
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Robert Henschel

NSF Acceptance Test Suite

  • MILC, PARATEC, HOMME
  • WRF not included

32 64 128 256 512 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Ratio of WinHPC to RHEL

RHEL MILC Medium WinHPC MILC Large WinHPC PARATEC WinHPC HOMME WinHPC

Cores Ratio

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Robert Henschel

HPCC

  • Innovative Computing Laboratory at the University of

Tennessee

  • Version 3.1.3
  • 3 categories:

– Floating Point – Memory – Interconnect

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Robert Henschel

HPCC

  • Floating point tests (HPL, G-FFT)

8 16 32 64 128 256 512 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Ratio of WinHPC to RHEL

RHEL HPL WinHPC GFFT WinHPC

Cores Ratio

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Robert Henschel

HPCC

  • Memory performance tests (Random Access, Stream)

8 16 32 64 128 256 512 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Ratio of WinHPC to RHEL

RHEL G-Ran- domAccess WinHPC EP-Stream WinHPC

Cores Ratio

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Robert Henschel

HPCC

  • Interconnect performance tests (G-PTRANS, RR-

Bandwidth and Latency)

8 16 32 64 128 256 512 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Ratio of WinHPC to RHEL

RHEL G-PTRANS WinHPC RR-Bandwidth WinHPC RR-Latency WinHPC

Cores Ratio

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Robert Henschel

Conclusion

  • Overall performance of WinHPC and RHEL5 is almost

identical

  • Certain applications scale better on RHEL5 than on

WinHPC for larger core counts, while they perform very similar on smaller core counts

  • When applications scale better on WinHPC, they do so

across all core counts

  • Building and running the benchmarks is more challenging
  • n WinHPC
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Robert Henschel

Acknowledgements

This document was developed with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0910812 to Indiana University for "FutureGrid: An Experimental, High- Performance Grid Test-bed." Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. ACI-0338618l, OCI- 0451237, OCI-0535258, OCI-0504075, OCI-0910812 and CNS- 0521433. This research was supported in part by the Indiana METACyt

  • Initiative. The Indiana METACyt Initiative of Indiana University

is supported in part by Lilly Endowment, Inc.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Robert Henschel

Thank You

Questions?