Since simulation became the third pillar of scientific research, several forms of computers have become available to drive computer aided simulations, and nowadays, clusters are the most popular type of computers supporting these tasks. For instance, cluster settings, such as the so-called supercomputers, cluster of workstations (COW), cluster of desktops (COD), and cluster of virtual machines (COV) have been considered in literature to embrace a variety of scientific applications. However, those scientific applications categorized as high-performance computing (HPC) are conceptually restricted to be addressed only by supercomputers. In this aspect, we introduce the notions of cluster overhead and cluster coupling to assess the capacity of non-HPC systems to handle HPC applications. We also compare the cluster overhead with an existing measure of overhead in computing systems, the total parallel overhead, to explain the correctness of our methodology. The evaluation of capacity considers the seven dwarfs of scientific computing, which are well-known, scientific computing building blocks considered in the development of HPC applications. The evaluation of these building blocks provides insights regarding the strengths and weaknesses of non-HPC systems to deal with future HPC applications developed with one or a combination of these algorithmic building blocks.
HwangKDongarraJFoxGC.Distributed and cloud computing: from parallel processing to the internet of things. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2013.
2.
DongarraJFosterIFoxGC, et al. Sourcebook of parallel computing, vol. 3003. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.
3.
KimJLiljaDJ. Characterization of communication patterns in message-passing parallel scientific application programs. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on communication, architecture, and applications for network-based parallel computing, Las Vegas, NV, 31 January–1 February 1998, pp. 202–216. Berlin: Springer.
4.
MurañaJNesmachnowS.Simulation and evaluation of multicriteria planning heuristics for demand response in datacenters. Simulation. Epub ahead of print 14June2021. DOI: 10.1177/00375497211020083.
5.
OstermannSIosupAYigitbasiN, et al. A performance analysis of EC2 cloud computing services for scientific computing. In: Proceedings of the international conference on cloud computing, Munich, 19–21 October 2009, pp. 115–131. Berlin: Springer.
6.
SainiSHeistandSJinH, et al. An application-based performance evaluation of NASA’s Nebula cloud computing platform. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 14th international conference on high performance computing and communication & 2012 IEEE 9th international conference on embedded software and systems, Liverpool, 25–27 June 2012, pp. 336–343. New York: IEEE.
7.
HeQZhouSKoblerB, et al. Case study for running HPC applications in public clouds. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international symposium on high performance distributed computing, Chicago, IL, 21–25 June 2010, pp. 395–401. New York: ACM.
8.
MehrotraPDjomehriJHeistandS, et al. Performance evaluation of Amazon elastic compute cloud for NASA high-performance computing applications. Concurr Comput Pract Exp2016; 28: 1041–1055.
9.
AljamalREl-MousaAJubairF. Benchmarking Microsoft Azure virtual machines for the use of HPC applications. In: Proceedings of the 2020 11th international conference on information and communication systems (ICICS), Irbid, Jordan, 7–9 April 2020, pp. 382–387. New York: IEEE.
10.
BeserraDPinheiroMKSouveyetC, et al. Performance evaluation of OS-level virtualization solutions for HPC purposes on SoC-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 31st international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA), Taipei, 27–29 March 2017, pp. 363–370. New York: IEEE.
11.
RajovicNCarpenterPMGeladoI, et al. Supercomputing with commodity CPUs: are mobile SoCs ready for HPC. In: Proceedings of the international conference on high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis, Denver, CO, 17–21 November 2013, pp. 1–12. New York: ACM.
12.
BeserraDOliveiraFAraujoJ, et al. Performance evaluation of hypervisors for HPC applications. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Hong Kong, China, 9–12 October 2015, pp. 846–851. New York: IEEE.
13.
ChavarriagaJGómezCEBonillaDC, et al. Capacity of desktop clouds for running HPC applications: a revisited analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on applied informatics, Madrid, 7–9 November 2019, pp. 257–268. Berlin: Springer.
14.
HuseLPBuggeH. High-end computing on SHV workstations connected with high performance network. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on applied parallel computing, Bergen, 18–20 June 2000, pp. 324–332. Berlin: Springer.
15.
SetiawanIMurdyantoroE. Commodity cluster using single system image based on Linux/Kerrighed for high-performance computing. In: Proceedings of the 2016 3rd international conference on information technology, computer, and electrical engineering (ICITACEE), Semarang, Indonesia, 19–20 October 2016, pp. 367–372. New York: IEEE.
16.
MikailovMQiuJLuoFJ, et al. Scaling modeling and simulation on high-performance computing clusters. Simulation2020; 96: 221–232.
17.
BellG.Bell’s Law for the birth and death of computer classes: a theory of the computer’s evolution. IEEE Solid Stat Circ Soc Newslett2008; 13: 8–19.
18.
EbbersMHastingsCNuttalM, et al. Introduction to the new mainframe: networking. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation, 2006.
19.
BalHESteinerJGTanenbaumAS.Programming languages for distributed computing systems. ACM Comput Surv1989; 21: 261–322.
20.
Van Der SteenAJ. Overview of recent supercomputers. Arnhem: HPC Research, 2008.
21.
National Research Council. Getting up to speed: the future of supercomputing. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005.
22.
StallingsW.Computer organization and architecture: designing for performance. 10th ed.Chennai, India: Pearson Education India, 2014.
23.
ASC Community. The student supercomputer challenge guide: from supercomputing competition to the next HPC generation. Beijing, China: Science Press, 2018.
AsanovicKBodikRDemmelJ, et al. The parallel computing laboratory at U.C. Berkeley: a research agenda based on the Berkeley view. Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2008-23, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2008, http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2008/EECS-2008-23.html
AbrahamMJMurtolaTSchulzR, et al. GROMACS: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX2015; 1–2: 19–25.
33.
QiRWeiGMaB, et al. Replica exchange molecular dynamics: a practical application protocol with solutions to common problems and a peptide aggregation and self-assembly example. In: NilssonBDoranT (eds) Peptide self-assembly. New York: Springer, 2018, pp. 101–119.
34.
Van de GeijnRGotoK. BLAS (basic linear algebra subprograms). Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 157–164.
35.
PetitetAWhaleyRCDongarraJ, et al. HPL: a portable implementation of the high-performance Linpack benchmark for distributed-memory computers, version 2.0. Knoxville, TN: Innovative Computing Laboratory, University of Tennessee, 2008, p. 10.
XieGXiaoYH.How to benchmark supercomputers. In: Proceedings of the 2015 14th international symposium on distributed computing and applications for business engineering and science (DCABES), Guiyang, China, 18–24 August 2015, pp. 364–367. New York: IEEE.
38.
BaileyDHBarszczEBartonJT, et al. The NAS parallel benchmarks. Int J Supercomput Appl1991; 5: 63–73.
39.
PetersenDESørensenHHBHansenPC, et al. Block tridiagonal matrix inversion and fast transmission calculations. J Comput Phys2008; 227: 3174–3190.
40.
MarowkaA. Performance of openMP benchmarks on multicore processors. In: Proceedings of the international conference on algorithms and architectures for parallel processing, Ayia Napa, 9–11 June 2008, pp. 208–219. Berlin: Springer.
41.
GramaAKumarVGuptaA, et al. Introduction to parallel computing. London: Pearson Education, 2003.
ChaiL.High performance and scalable MPI intra-node communication middleware for multi-core clusters. PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 2009.
46.
AlamSRBarrettRFKuehnJA, et al. Characterization of scientific workloads on systems with multi-core processors. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE international symposium on workload characterization, San Jose, CA, 25–27 October 2006, pp. 225–236. New York: IEEE.
47.
MoreaudSGoglinB. Impact of NUMA effects on high-speed networking with multi-opteron machines. In: Proceedings of the 19th IASTED international conference on parallel and distributed computing and systems (PDCS ’07), Cambridge, MA, 19–21 November 2007, pp. 24–29. Calgary, AB: ACTA Press.
48.
RistovSProdanRGusevM, et al. Superlinear speedup in HPC systems: why and when? In: Proceedings of the 2016 federated conference on computer science and information systems (FedCSIS), Gdansk, 11–14 September 2016, pp. 889–898. New York: IEEE.
49.
CamargosABatalhaRMartinsC, et al. Superlinear speedup in a 3-D parallel conjugate gradient solver. IEEE Trans Magnet2009; 45: 1602–1605.
