experimental comparative study of job management systems george washington university george mason...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems
George Washington UniversityGeorge Mason University
http://ece.gmu.edu/lucite
![Page 2: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline:
1. Review of experiments
2. Results
3. Encountered problems
4. Functional comparison
5. Extension to reconfigurable hardware
![Page 3: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Review of Experiments
![Page 4: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
science.gmu.edu
Linux – PII,400 MHz, 128 MB RAM
Linux RH7.0 – PIII 450 MHz, 512 MB RAM
4 x Linux RH6.2 – 2xPIII – 500 MHz, 128MB
m1
pallj / m0
Solaris 8 – UltraSparcIIi,360 MHz, 512 MB RAM
m4 m5 m7
3 x Linux RH6.2 – 2xPIII – 450 MHz, 128MB
Solaris 8 – UltraSparcIIi,440 MHz, 512 MB RAM
Solaris 8 – UltraSparcIIi,440 MHz, 128 MB RAM
Solaris 8 – UltraSparcIIi,330 MHz, 128 MB RAM
palpc2
alicja
anna
magdalena
redfox
gmu.edu
Our Testbed
![Page 5: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
* benchmarks used to determine the relative CPU factors of execution hosts
SHORT JOBS (1 s execution time 2 minutes)
No. Group Name Class Script name CPU time [s]
Memory Usage [MB]
Memory Requirements
[MB] 1 NPB FT S ft.S.sh 3.5 3.2 4 2 NPB FT W ft.W.sh 9.4 6.4 8 3 NPB MG W mg.W.sh 10.8 1.9 3 4 NPB EP S ep.S.sh 26.5 0.25 1 5 NPB EP W ep.W.sh 53.0 0.25 1 6 NPB IS W is.W.sh 1.0 1.7 3 7 NPB BT S bt.S.sh 3.0 2.5 3
8* NPB BT W bt.W.sh 115 17 21 9 NSA IS 7 mln radix.7M.sh 6 12.8 16
10 UPC Sobel 256 sobel.256.sh 4 0.4 1 11 UPC Sobel 512 sobel.512.sh 17 0.8 1
12* UPC Sobel 1024 sobel.1024.sh 68 2.4 3 13 UPC MM 512 matrix.1.sh 10.5 5.9 8 14 UPC MM 1024 matrix.2.sh 21 9.9 12 15 UPC MM 2048 matrix.3.sh 40 18.4 23
Average 22.0
![Page 6: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Machine names Host Type Host Model CPU Factor m1-m4 Linux PIII_2_500_128 1.65m5-m7 Linux PIII_2_450_128 1.55pallj Linux PIII_1_450_512 1.60palpc2 Linux P2_1_400_128 1.70alicja Solaris64 USIIi_1_360_512 1.0anna Solaris64 USIIi_1_440_128 1.2magdalena Solaris64 USIIi_1_440_512 1.2redfox Solaris64 USIIi_1_330_128 1.2
CPU factors for medium benchmark listbased on the execution time for bt.W and Sobel1024i
![Page 7: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
No. Group Name Class Script name CPU time [min:s]
Memory Usage [MB]
Memory Requirements
[MB] 1 NPB EP A ep.A.sh 7:45 1.3 3 2 NPB LU W lu.W.sh 8:09 6.8 9 3* NPB SP W sp.W.sh 6:07 15.1 19 4 Crypto Mars M crypto.mars.M.sh 9:21 0.4 1 5 Crypto RC6 M crypto.rc6.M.sh 6:21 0.4 1 6 Crypto Rijndael M crypto.rijndael.M.sh 4:11 0.4 1 7 Crypto Serpent M crypto.serpent.M.sh 8:54 0.4 1 8* Crypto Twofish M crypto.twofish.M.sh 8:05 0.4 1
Average 7:22
MEDIUM JOBS (2 minutes execution time 10 minutes)
* benchmarks used to determine the relative CPU factors of execution hosts
![Page 8: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
No. Group Name Class Script name CPU time [min:s]
Memory Usage [MB]
Memory Requirements
[MB] 1* NPB EP B ep.B.sh 30:15 5 6 2 Crypto Mars L crypto.mars.L.sh 14:55 0.4 1 3 Crypto RC6 L crypto.rc6.L.sh 10:07 0.4 1 4 Crypto Rijndael L crypto.rijndael.L.sh 10:58 0.4 1 5 Crypto Serpent L crypto.serpent.L.sh 14:09 0.4 1 6* Crypto Twofish L cryto.twofish.L.sh 20:45 0.4 1
Average 16:51
LONG JOBS (10 minutes execution time 30 minutes)
* benchmarks used to determine the relative CPU factors of execution hosts
![Page 9: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
No. Group Name Class Script name CPU time
[min:s]
Memory Usage [MB]
Memory Requirements [MB]
Input files
Output file
1 NPB FT S ft.S.io.sh 0:04 3.2 4 fft_64.in_pc fft_64.in_sun
fft_64.out_pc fft_64.out_sun
2 NPB FT W ft.W.io.sh 0:10 6.4 8 fft_128.in_pc fft_128.in_sun
fft_128.out_pc fft_128.out_sun
3 UPC MM 512 matrix.1.io.sh 0:11 5.9 8 mat_512.in_pc mat_512.in_sun
mat_512.out_pc mat_512.out_sun
4 UPC MM 1024 matrix.2.io.sh 0:21 9.9 12 mat_1024.in_pc mat_1024.in_sun
mat_1024.out_pc mat_1024.out_sun
5 UPC MM 2048 matrix.3.io.sh 0:40 18.4 23 mat_2048.in_pc mat_2048.in_sun
mat_2048.out_pc mat_2048.out_sun
6 NPB LU W lu.W.io.sh 8:09 6.8 9 - LU_W.out Average 1:36
INPUT/OUTPUT JOBS (1 second execution time 10 minutes)
![Page 10: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Typical experiment
time
Job submissions
time
1 N
i1 iN
time=0
Jobs finishing execution
Total time of an experiment 2 hours
N= 150 for medium and small jobs75 for long jobs
Pseudorandom delays between consecutivejob submissions
Poisson distribution of the job submission rate
![Page 11: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Experi-ment
Number
Benchmark Set
Average CPU time /
Job
Average Time Intervals
Between Job Submissions
Total Number of Jobs
Special Assumptions
1 Set 2, Medium job list
7 min 22 s 30 s, 15 s, 5 s 150 one job / CPU
2 Set 2, Medium job list
7 min 22 s 15 s 150 two jobs / CPU
3 Set 3, Long job list
16 min 51 s 2 min, 30 s 75 one job / CPU
4 Set 1, Short job list
22 s 15 s, 10 s, 5 s 150 one job / CPU
5 Set 4, I/O job list
1 min 36 s 15 s 150 one job / CPU
List of experiments
![Page 12: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
time
ts
submissiontime
tb
begin of executiontime
te
end of executiontime
td
deliverytime
TR
responsetime
TTA
turn aroundtime
TEXE
executiontime
TD
deliverytime
Definition of timing parameters
![Page 13: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
time
ts
submissiontime
tb
begin of executiontime
te
end of executiontime
TR
responsetime
TTA
turn aroundtime
TEXE
executiontime TD=0
delivery time=0
Typical scenario
determined using the gettimeofday() function
![Page 14: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Total Throughput
time
Job submissions
time
1 N
i1 iN
time=0
Jobs finishing execution
TN – time necessary to execute N jobs
Total Throughput = N
TN
![Page 15: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Partial Throughput
time
Job submissions
time
1 N
i1 iN
time=0
Jobs finishing execution
Tk – time necessary to execute k jobs
Throughput (k) = k
Tk
ik
![Page 16: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
machine 2
machine M
machine 1
0%
100%CPU utilization
average CPU utilization
0%
100%CPU utilization
average CPU utilization
0%
100%CPU utilization
average CPU utilization
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
job1 job2 job3
job1 job2
job2
job1 job3
Uavr
1
Uavr
2
Uavr
M
M
1j
avrjU
M
1 UOverall utilization =
Utilization
![Page 17: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Results
![Page 18: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2 jobs/min 4 jobs/min 12 jobs/minAverage job submission rate
Medium jobs – Total ThroughputThroughput [jobs/hour]
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
7670
68
79
97 91
82
114107
102
86
110
![Page 19: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2 jobs/min 4 jobs/min 12 jobs/min
Medium jobs – Turn-around Time
LSFPBSCodineCondor
Average job submission rate
Turn-around Time [s]
496 462607
505
1134
944
12931148
1765
1466
1949
1627
![Page 20: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2 jobs/min 4 jobs/min 12 jobs/minAverage job submission rate
Medium jobs – Response TimeResponse Time [s]
LSFPBSCodineCondor
13 3 31 28
636
452
734671
1274
984
1385
1156
![Page 21: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2 jobs/min 4 jobs/min 12 jobs/minAverage job submission rate
Medium jobs – UtilizationUtilization [%]
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
54
41
70
61 6357
71 74 7367
78
69
![Page 22: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.5 job/min 2 jobs/minAverage job submission rate
Long jobs – Total ThroughputThroughput [jobs/hour]
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
25 26
18
40
2830
23
42
![Page 23: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.5 job/min 2 jobs/minAverage job submission rate
Long jobs – Turn-around TimeTurn-around Time [s]
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
1148 1079
1903 19262191 2163
3401
2357
![Page 24: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0.5 job/min 2 jobs/minAverage job submission rate
Long jobs – Response TimeResponse Time [s]
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
13 3 3
721
860799
1478
1225
![Page 25: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.5 job/min 2 jobs/minAverage job submission rate
Long jobs – UtilizationUtilization [%]
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
4346
52
24
5658
64
69
![Page 26: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
4 jobs/min 6 jobs/min 12 jobs/min 30 jobs/min 60 jobs/min
Average job submission rate
Short jobs – Total ThroughputThroughput [jobs/hour]
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
240227
234
160
356322 337
205
652
414
607
280
1076
576
336
1255
642
370
1027
1210
![Page 27: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
4 jobs/min 6 jobs/min 12 jobs/min 30 jobs/min 60 jobs/min
Average job submission rate
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
Short jobs – Turn-around TimeTurn-around Time [s]
42
3429
50
41
33 29
51
42
58
29
51
68
58
31
52
120
62
32
50
![Page 28: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
4 jobs/min 6 jobs/min 12 jobs/min 30 jobs/min 60 jobs/min
Average job submission rate
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
Short jobs – Response TimeResponse Time [s]
9
2 1
19
9
3 1
19
9 8
1
17
32
8
2
18
83
9
2
18
![Page 29: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4 jobs/min 6 jobs/min 12 jobs/min 30 jobs/min 60 jobs/min
Average job submission rate
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
Short jobs – UtilizationUtilization [%]
9
18
6 6
15
21
98
20
35
16
10
26
38
12
3738
12
32
37
![Page 30: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Medium jobs – Total ThroughputThroughput [jobs/hour]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 job/CPU, 4 jobs/min 2 jobs/CPU, 4 jobs/min
Maximum number of jobs per CPU
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
9791
82
114
90
80
67
105
![Page 31: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Medium jobs – Turn-around TimeTurn-around Time [s]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 job/CPU, 4 jobs/min 2 jobs/CPU, 4 jobs/min
Maximum number of jobs per CPU
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
1134
944
1293 1147
1297 1273
1482
969
![Page 32: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Medium jobs – Response TimeResponse Time [s]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 job/CPU, 4 jobs/min 2 jobs/CPU, 4 jobs/min
Maximum number of jobs per CPU
LSFPBS
CodineCondor636
452
734
671
387
285
386 386
![Page 33: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Medium jobs – UtilizationUtilization [%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 job/CPU, 4 jobs/min 2 jobs/CPU, 4 jobs/min
Maximum number of jobs per CPU
LSFPBS
CodineCondor
63
57
7174
6358
6354
![Page 34: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Encountered problems
![Page 35: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
1. Jobs with high requirements on the stack size
Indication: Certain jobs do not finish execution when run under LSF. The same jobs run correctly outside of any JMS, and under other job management systems
Source: Variable STACKLIMIT in $LSB_CONFDIR/<cluster_name>/configdir/lsb.queues
Remaining Problem: Documentation of default limits.
![Page 36: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
2. Frequently submitted small jobs
Indication: Unexpectedly high response time and turn-around time for a medium job submission rate
Possible solution: Defining variable CHUNK_JOB_SIZE (e.g., =5) in lsb.queues, and the variable LSB_CHUNK_NORUSAGE=y in lsf.conf
![Page 37: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
3. Ordering of machines fulfilling resource requirements
Question: How many machines are dropped from the list based on the first ordering?
Default:
r1m : pg
![Page 38: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
4. Random behavior from iteration to iteration
Question: Why is r1m different each time?
Indication: Assignment of jobs to particular machines is different in each iteration of the experiment
![Page 39: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
5. Boundary effects in the calculation of the throughput
Question: How to define the steady state throughput?
Indication: Steady state partial throughput different than the total throughput
![Page 40: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
6. Throughput vs. turn-around time
Question: How to explain the lack of this correlation?
Indication: No correlation between the ranking of JMSes in terms of the throughput and in terms of the turn-around time
![Page 41: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Functional comparison
![Page 42: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Operating system, flexibility, user interface
LSF Codine PBS CONDOR RES
Distribution
Source code
OS Support
User Interface
SolarisLinuxTru64NT
GUI &CLI
CLI
com pub pub/com pub gov
GUI &CLI
GUI &CLI
GUI &CLI
![Page 43: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Scheduling and Resource Management
LSF Codine PBS CONDOR RES
Batch jobs
Interactive jobs
Parallel jobs
Accounting
![Page 44: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Efficiency and Utilization
LSF Codine PBS CONDOR RES
Stage-in andstage-out
Timesharing
Process migration
Dynamic loadbalancing
Scalability
![Page 45: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Fault Tolerance and Security
LSF Codine PBS CONDOR RES
Checkpointing
Daemon fault recovery
Authentication
Authorization
![Page 46: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Documentation and Technical Support
LSF Codine PBS CONDOR RES
Documentation
Technicalsupport
![Page 47: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
JMS features supporting extension to reconfigurable hardware
• capability to define new dynamic resources
• strong support for stage-in and stage-out- configuration bitstreams- executable code- input/output data
• support for Windows NT and Linux
![Page 48: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Ranking of Centralized Job Management Systems (1)
Capability to define new dynamic resources:
Excellent: LSF, PBS, CODINEMore difficult: CONDOR, RES
Stage-in and stage-out:
Excellent: LSF, PBSLimited: CONDORNo: CODINE, RES
![Page 49: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Ranking of Centralized Job Management Systems (2)
Overall suitability to extend to reconfigurable hardware:
1. LSF2. CODINE3. PBS4. CONDOR5. RES
without changing the JMS source code
requires changes to the JMS source code
![Page 50: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Extension to reconfigurablehardware
![Page 51: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Submission host
LIM
Batch API
Master host
MLIM
MBD
Execution host
SBD
Child SBD
LIM
RES
User job
Extension of LSF to reconfigurable hardware (1)Operation of LSF
LIM – Load Information ManagerMLIM – Master LIMMBD – Master Batch DaemonSBD – Slave Batch DaemonRES – Remote Execution Server
queue1
2
3
45
6 7
89
10
11
12
13
Loadinformation
otherhosts
otherhosts
bsub app
![Page 52: Experimental Comparative Study of Job Management Systems George Washington University George Mason University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062320/56649f4d5503460f94c6de78/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Extension of LSF to reconfigurable hardware(2)
Submission host
LIM
Batch API
Master host
MLIM
MBD
Execution host
SBD
Child SBD
LIM
RES
User job
ELIM – External Load Information ManagerACS API – Adaptive Computing Systems API
queue1
2
3
45
6 7
89
10
11
12
13
Loadinformation
otherhosts
otherhosts
bsub app
ELIM
ACS API
14FPGAboard
Statusof theboard