HPCMP Benchmarking Update Cray Henry April 2008 Department of Defense High Performance Computing Modernization Program

HPCMP Benchmarking Update

Cray HenryApril 2008

Department of DefenseHigh Performance Computing Modernization Program

Outline

Context – HPCMP

Initial Motivation from 2003

Process Review

Results

DoD HPC Modernization Program

DoD HPC Modernization Program

HPCMP Serves a Large, Diverse DoD User Community

519 projects and 4,086 users at approximately 130 sites

Requirements categorized in 10 Computational Technology Areas (CTA)

FY08 non-real-time requirements of 1,108 Habu-equivalents

156 users are self characterized as “Other”

Computational Structural Mechanics – 437 Users

Electronics, Networking, and Systems/C4I – 114 Users

Computational Chemistry, Biology & Materials Science – 408 Users

Computational Electromagnetics & Acoustics – 337 Users

Computational Fluid Dynamics – 1,572 Users

Environmental Quality Modeling & Simulation – 147 Users

Signal/Image Processing – 353 Users

Integrated Modeling & Test Environments – 139 Users

Climate/Weather/Ocean Modeling & Simulation – 241 Users

Forces Modeling & Simulation – 182 Users

Benchmarks Have REAL Impact

In 2003 we started to describe our benchmarking approach

Today benchmarks are even more important

In 2003 we started to describe our benchmarking approach

Today benchmarks are even more important

2003 Benchmark Focus

Focused on application benchmarks

Recognized application benchmarks were not enough

2003 Challenge – Move to Synthetic Benchmarks

5 years later we have made progress, but not enough to fully transition to synthetics

Supported over $300M in purchases so far

Comparison of HPCMP System Capabilities – FY 2003 - FY 2008

What Has Changed Since 2003

(TI-08) Introduction of performance modeling and predictions– Primary emphases still on application benchmarks

– Performance modeling now used to predict some application performance

– Performance predictions and measured benchmark results compared for HPCMP systems used in TI-08 to assess accuracy

(TI-08) Met one on one with vendors to review performance predictions for each vendor’s individual systems

Overview of TI-XX Acquisition Process

Determine requirements, usage, and allocations

Choose application benchmarks, test cases, and weights

Vendors provide measured and projected times on offered systems

Vendors provide measured and projected times on offered systems

Measure benchmark times on DoD standard system

Measure benchmark times on existing DoD systems

Determine performance for each offered system per application test case

Determine performance for each existing system per application test case

Determine performance for each offered system

Usability/past performance information on offered systems

Usability/past performance information on offered systems

Collective acquisition decision

Use optimizer to determine price/performance for each offered system and combination of systems

Center facility requirements

Vendor pricingVendor pricing

Life-cycle costs for offered systems

TI-09 Application Benchmarks

AMR – Gas dynamics code

– (C++/FORTRAN, MPI, 40,000 SLOC)

AVUS (Cobalt-60) – Turbulent flow CFD code

– (Fortran, MPI, 19,000 SLOC)

CTH – Shock physics code

– (~43% Fortran/~57% C, MPI, 436,000 SLOC)

GAMESS – Quantum chemistry code

– (Fortran, MPI, 330,000 SLOC)

HYCOM – Ocean circulation modeling code– (Fortran, MPI, 31,000 SLOC)

ICEPIC – Particle-in-cell magnetohydrodynamics code – (C, MPI, 60,000 SLOC)

LAMMPS – Molecular dynamics code– (C++, MPI, 45,400 SLOC)

Red = predictedBlack = benchmarkedRed = predictedBlack = benchmarked

Predicting Code Performance for TI-08 and TI-09

*The next 12 charts were provided by the Performance Modeling and Characterization Group at the San Diego Supercomputer Center.

Prediction Framework – Processor and Communications Models

Memory Subsystem Is Key in Predicting Performance

Red Shift – Memory Subsystem Bottleneck

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1982

1984

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007n

ano

seco

nd

s

CPU Cycle Time

Multi Core Effective Cycle Time

Memory Access Time

Predicted Compute Time Per Core –HYCOM

MultiMAPS System Profile

One curve per stride pattern– Plateaus

correspond to data fitting in cache

– Drops correspond to data split between cache levels

MultiMAPS ported to C and will be included in HPC Challenge Benchmarks

0.0E+00

2.0E+03

4.0E+03

6.0E+03

8.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.2E+04

1.4E+04

1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09

Working Set size (8-byte words)

Me

mo

ry B

an

dw

idth

(M

B/s

) IBM p655

SGI Altix

IBM Opteron

Working Set Size (8 Byte Words)Working Set Size (8 Byte Words)

Mem

ory

B

and

wid

th (

MB

/s)

Mem

ory

B

and

wid

th (

MB

/s)

Sample MultiMAPS Output Sample MultiMAPS Output

0.00E+00

1.00E+03

2.00E+03

3.00E+03

4.00E+03

5.00E+03

6.00E+03

7.00E+03

8.00E+03

1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09

Size (bytes)

Me

mo

ry B

an

dw

idth

(M

B/s

)

1255 1core

1255 4 cores

L2 cache being shared

4 Core Woodcrest Node

Modeling the Effects of Multicore

LAMMPS LRG 256

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

flops

L1 cache

L2 cache

L3 cache

Main memoryOn-node lat

On-node BW

Off-node lat

Off-node BW

Performance Sensitivity of LAMMPS LRG to 2x Improvements

Performance Sensitivity of OVERFLOW2 STD to 2x Improvements

Performance Sensitivity of OVERFLOW2 LRG to 2x Improvements

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

flops

L1 cache

L2 cache

L3 cache

Main memoryOn-node lat

On-node BW

Off-node lat

Off-node BW

WRF STD 64

AMR STD 128

LAMMPS LRG 256

Overflow2 LRG 512

Main Memory and L1 Cache Have Most Effect on Runtime

Differences Between Predicted and Measured Benchmark Times (Unsigned)

Application Test Case

System AMRStd

AMRLg

ICEPIC Std

ICEPICLg

LAMMPS Lg

OVERFLOW2 Std

OVERFLOW2 Lg

WRF Std

WRFLg

Overall

ASC HP Opteron Cluster

16.6% 6.3% - - 2.9% 8.0% 43.0% - - 15.4%

ASC SGI Altix 14.1% 3.4% 22.1% 15.6% 7.5% 4.1% 10.0% 24.3% 16.5% 13.1%

MHPCC Dell Xeon Cluster

20.7% 14.7% 6.7% 4.2% 8.1% 23.3% - - - 13.0%

NAVO IBM P5+ 11.7% - - - 9.6% 3.0% 1.8% 7.8% 16.4% 8.4%

Overall 12.4%

Note: Average uncertainties of measured benchmark times on loaded HPCMP systems are approximately 5%.

Solving the hard problems . . .04/20/23

25

ASC_HP (AMR_LG)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

192 256 320 384 448 512 576 640 704 768 832

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (S

app

hir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)


26

ASC_DC_Altix (AMR_LG)

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

192 256 320 384 448 512 576 640 704 768 832

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (S

app

hir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)


27

MHPCC_DC_Dell (AMR_LG)

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

192 256 320 384 448 512 576 640 704 768 832

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (S

app

hir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)

MHPCC_DC_Dell (OVERFLOW2_STD)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 64 128 192 256 320

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (

Sap

phir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)

NAVO_DC_P5+ (OVERFLOW2_LG)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

192 256 320 384 448 512 576 640 704 768 832

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (

Sap

phir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)


30

ASC_DC_Altix (ICEPIC_LG)

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

192 320 448 576 704 832 960 1088 1216 1344 1472 1600

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (

Sap

phir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)Pseudo Score


31

ASC_HP (LAMMPS_LG)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

192 256 320 384 448 512 576 640 704

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (S

app

hir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (P)

STM Range (B)


32

ASC_DC_Altix (AMR_STD)

0.2

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

3.4

0 64 128 192 256 320

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (S

app

hir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)

NAVO_DC_P5+ (WRF_STD)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 64 128 192 256 320

Cores

Rel

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce (

Sap

phir

e E

q.)

Benchmark Data

Benchmark Curve

Predicted Data

Predicted Curve

STM Range (B)

STM Range (P)

What’s Next?

More focus on Signature Analysis

Continue to evolve application benchmarks to represent accurately the HPCMP computational workload

Increase profiling and performance modeling to understand application performance better

Use performance predictions to supplement application benchmark measurements and to guide vendors in designing more efficient systems

Documents

HPCMP Benchmarking Update Cray Henry April 2008 Department of Defense High Performance Computing Modernization Program