skip to main content
10.1145/3624062.3624115acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

When to checkpoint at the end of a fixed-length reservation?

Published:12 November 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

This work considers an application executing for a fixed duration, namely the length of the reservation that it has been granted. The checkpoint duration is a stochastic random variable that obeys some well-known probability distribution law. The question is when to take a checkpoint towards the end of the execution, so that the expectation of the work done is maximized. We address two scenarios. In the first scenario, a checkpoint can be taken at any time; despite its simplicity, this natural problem has not been considered yet (to the best of our knowledge). We provide the optimal solution for a variety of probability distribution laws modeling checkpoint duration. The second scenario is more involved: the application is a linear workflow consisting of a chain of tasks with IID stochastic execution times, and a checkpoint can be taken only at the end of a task. First, we introduce a static strategy where we compute the optimal number of tasks before the application checkpoints at the beginning of the execution. Then, we design a dynamic strategy that decides whether to checkpoint or to continue executing at the end of each task. We instantiate this second scenario with several examples of probability distribution laws for task durations.

References

  1. Emmanuel Agullo, Luc Giraud, Abdou Guermouche, Jean Roman, and Mawussi Zounon. 2016. Numerical recovery strategies for parallel resilient Krylov linear solvers. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications 23, 5 (2016), 888–905.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Chandra Chekuri, Waqar Hasan, and Rajeev Motwani. 1995. Scheduling problems in parallel query optimization. In PODS’1995, the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems (San Jose, California, United States). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/212433.212471Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alok Choudhary, Wei-keng Liao, Donald Weiner, Pramod Varshney, Richard Linderman, Mark Linderman, and Russell Brown. 2000. Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Parallel Pipelined STAP on Parallel Computers. IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems 36, 2 (April 2000), 655 – 662. https://doi.org/10.1109/7.845238Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. J. T. Daly. 2006. A higher order estimate of the optimum checkpoint interval for restart dumps. Future Generation Comp. Syst. 22, 3 (2006), 303–312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ewa Deelman, James Blythe, Yolanda Gil, and Carl Kesselman. 2003. Workflow management in GriPhyN. In Grid Resource Management. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Stanley C Eisenstat, Howard C Elman, and Martin H Schultz. 1983. Variational iterative methods for nonsymmetric systems of linear equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 20, 2 (1983), 345–357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Stanley P Frankel. 1950. Convergence rates of iterative treatments of partial differential equations. Math. Tables Aids Comput. 4, 30 (1950), 65–75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Fernando Guirado, Ana Ripoll, Concepció Roig, Aura Hernandez, and Emilio Luque. 2006. Exploiting Throughput for Pipeline Execution in Streaming Image Processing Applications. In Euro-Par 2006, Parallel Processing(LNCS 4128). Springer, 1095–1105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fernando Guirado, Ana Ripoll, Concepcio Roig, and Emilio Luque. 2005. Optimizing Latency under Throughput Requirements for Streaming Applications on Cluster Execution. In Cluster Computing, 2005. IEEE International. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/CLUSTR.2005.347051Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Martin H Gutknecht. 1993. Variants of BICGSTAB for matrices with complex spectrum. SIAM journal on scientific computing 14, 5 (1993), 1020–1033.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Timothy D. R. Hartley, Ahmed R. Fasih, Charles A. Berdanier, Fusun Ozguner, and Ümit V. Çatalyürek. 2009. Investigating the Use of GPU-Accelerated Nodes for SAR Image Formation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, Workshop on Parallel Programming on Accelerator Clusters (PPAC).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Thomas Herault and Yves Robert (Eds.). 2015. Fault-Tolerance Techniques for High-Performance Computing. Springer Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jihie Kim, Yolanda Gil, and Marc Spraragen. 2004. A knowledge-based approach to interactive workflow composition. In 14th International Conference on Automatic Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kathleen Knobe, James M. Rehg, Arun Chauhan, Rishiyur S. Nikhil, and Umakishore Ramachandran. 1999. Scheduling constrained dynamic applications on clusters. In Supercomputing’1999, the 1999 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing (Portland, Oregon, United States). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 46. https://doi.org/10.1145/331532.331578Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Julien Langou, Zizhong Chen, George Bosilca, and Jack Dongarra. 2008. Recovery patterns for iterative methods in a parallel unstable environment. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30, 1 (2008), 102–116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. William L Oberkampf and Christopher J Roy. 2010. Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Anthony Rowe, Dimitrios Kalaitzopoulos, Michelle Osmond, Moustafa Ghanem, and Yike Guo. 2003. The discovery net system for high throughput bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 19, Suppl 1 (2003), i225–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Christopher J Roy and William L Oberkampf. 2011. A comprehensive framework for verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification in scientific computing. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 200, 25-28 (2011), 2131–2144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Y. Saad. 2003. Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems (2nd ed.). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Youcef Saad and Martin H Schultz. 1986. GMRES: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM Journal on scientific and statistical computing 7, 3 (1986), 856–869.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Olcay Sertel, Jun Kong, Hiroyuki Shimada, Ümit V. Çatalyürek, Joel H. Saltz, and Metin N. Gurcan. 2009. Computer-aided prognosis of neuroblastoma on whole-slide images: Classification of stromal development. Pattern Recognition 42, 6 (2009), 1093–1103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Divyansh Sharma. 2022. Application checkpointing. https://hevodata.com/learn/application-checkpointing/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Wikipedia. 2023. Application checkpointing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_checkpointing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Wolfram Alpha. 2023. Mathematics. https://www.wolframalpha.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. David Young. 1954. Iterative methods for solving partial difference equations of elliptic type. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 76, 1 (1954), 92–111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. John W. Young. 1974. A first order approximation to the optimum checkpoint interval. Comm. of the ACM 17, 9 (1974), 530–531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. When to checkpoint at the end of a fixed-length reservation?
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            SC-W '23: Proceedings of the SC '23 Workshops of The International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis
            November 2023
            2180 pages
            ISBN:9798400707858
            DOI:10.1145/3624062

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 12 November 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)14
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format