论文标题
可延展工作的整体放缓驱动计划和资源管理
Holistic Slowdown Driven Scheduling and Resource Management for Malleable Jobs
论文作者
论文摘要
在工作安排中,自多年前以来一直探讨了延展性的概念。研究表明,延展性可以提高系统性能,但其在HPC中的利用从未普遍存在。原因是开发可延展的应用程序的困难,以及HPC软件堆栈不同层的支持和集成。但是,在过去的几年中,由于硬件和工作负载的复杂性日益增加,工作时间表的锻造性变得越来越重要。在这种情况下,在传统的HPC作业中,在独家模式下使用节点并不总是是最有效的解决方案,在传统的HPC作业中,应用程序进行了高度调整以进行静态分配,而是为动态执行提供零灵活性。本文提出了一种新的整体,动态的工作调度策略,“放缓驱动”(SD-Policy),该政策利用了应用程序的可锻造性作为关键技术,以减少平均减速和工作的响应时间。 SD-Policy基于回填和节点共享。它适用于跑步工作,以腾出工作空间,以减少资源集,只有当估计的放缓对静态方法改善时。我们在Slurm中实施了SD-Policy,并在真实的生产环境中对其进行了评估,并使用最多198K工作的工作负载进行了模拟器。结果显示,对于评估的工作量,结果显示了更好的资源利用,随着MakePAN的减少,响应时间,放缓和能源消耗的减少,分别为7%,50%,70%和6%。
In job scheduling, the concept of malleability has been explored since many years ago. Research shows that malleability improves system performance, but its utilization in HPC never became widespread. The causes are the difficulty in developing malleable applications, and the lack of support and integration of the different layers of the HPC software stack. However, in the last years, malleability in job scheduling is becoming more critical because of the increasing complexity of hardware and workloads. In this context, using nodes in an exclusive mode is not always the most efficient solution as in traditional HPC jobs, where applications were highly tuned for static allocations, but offering zero flexibility to dynamic executions. This paper proposes a new holistic, dynamic job scheduling policy, Slowdown Driven (SD-Policy), which exploits the malleability of applications as the key technology to reduce the average slowdown and response time of jobs. SD-Policy is based on backfill and node sharing. It applies malleability to running jobs to make room for jobs that will run with a reduced set of resources, only when the estimated slowdown improves over the static approach. We implemented SD-Policy in SLURM and evaluated it in a real production environment, and with a simulator using workloads of up to 198K jobs. Results show better resource utilization with the reduction of makespan, response time, slowdown, and energy consumption, up to respectively 7%, 50%, 70%, and 6%, for the evaluated workloads.