[codes-ross-users] Workarounds to allow idle nodes in Torus Network?

[Jenkins, Jonathan P.]

Hi Daniel,

Glad to hear the docs have been useful to you!

Right now, our configuration scheme isn't well-suited to irregularity - annotations help delineate "sections" of LPs, but not if you want to "pick and choose" LPs. I would suggest a separate configuration routine for this. One option for your case is to have a whitelist of torus nodes to run that you check at runtime, set up via an LP "configure" function you call in main. You could either have a file with a set of IDs (relative IDs would be good here, that you would translate via codes_mapping_lpid_from_relative), or if you want a "topology-aware" mapping, a set of torus coordinates (there's utilities for torus mapping functions in codes-net/codes/model-net-inspect.h).

Hope this helps!
John


From: <codes-ross-users-bounces at lists.mcs.anl.gov<mailto:codes-ross-users-bounces at lists.mcs.anl.gov>> on behalf of Daniel Parker <dkparker at uchicago.edu<mailto:dkparker at uchicago.edu>>
Date: Monday, July 6, 2015 at 3:31 PM
To: "codes-ross-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov<mailto:codes-ross-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov>" <codes-ross-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov<mailto:codes-ross-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov>>
Subject: [codes-ross-users] Workarounds to allow idle nodes in Torus Network?

Hello,

My name is Daniel Parker, and I'm an undergrad in the BigDataX REU, in which I am doing benchmarking on 3D torus networks using CODES/ROSS. I am interested in studying latency and throughput over the network as the number of nodes in communication increases, from just one pair of nodes to a fully busy network. However, I noticed in the MN_TODO file (/codes-net/src/models/networks/model-net) that idle nodes within the torus network have not yet been implemented. Indeed, when I attempt to have less repetitions of my servers than the total number of nodes in the network, the simulation will not run (as expected).

I am wondering whether in the mean time there is any way that I can achieve this sort of functionality. One idea that I had was to use annotations to specify some nodes as having "dummy" kickoff handlers that do not give them work. However, my concern is that use of annotations could introduce a systematic nature to the "off" nodes, i.e. having them all have the same x coordinate or be close together or something of that sort, whereas I would want them to be randomly distributed across the network. This concern comes from uncertainty as to how codes-net constructs the network in such heterogeneous models.

So my question is whether there is a way to achieve these sorts of randomly distributed idle nodes within a torus network, so as to model some-to-some communication. Can annotations do what I want? Or is there some other work-around as of now?

Thank you for your time. I appreciate the work that has gone into CODES and ROSS, especially the well-commented example files and the GETTING_STARTED files, which have proved very useful.

Best,

Daniel Parker
Computer Science
University of Chicago 2017
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/codes-ross-users/attachments/20150707/bb375ddf/attachment.html>