Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 21, 2011, 4:20:30 PM (8 years ago)
Author:
ashriram
Message:

Working on evaluation. Fixed Figure sizes

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • docs/HPCA2012/06-scalability.tex

    r1302 r1335  
    11\section{Scalability}
    22\subsection{Performance}
    3 Figure \ref{Scalability} (a) demonstrates the average XML well-formedness checking performance of Parabix2 for each of the workloads and as executed on each of the processor cores --- \CO\, \CITHREE\ and \SB{}.
    4 Processing time is shown in terms of bit stream based operations executed in `bit-space' and postprocessing operations executed in `byte-space'.
    5 In the Parabix2 parser, bit-space parallel bit stream parser operations consist primarily of SIMD instructions; byte-space operations
    6 consist of byte comparisons across arrays of values. Executing Parabix2 on \CITHREE{} over \CO\ results in an average performance improvement
    7 of 17\% in bit stream processing whereas migrating Parabix2 from \CITHREE{} to \SB{} results in a 22\% average performance gain. Bit space measurements are stable and consistent across each of the source inputs and cores. Postprocessing operations demonstrate data dependent variance. Performance gains from 18\% to 31\% performance are observered in migrating Parabix2 from \CO\ to \CITHREE{}; 0\% to 17\% performance
    8 from \CITHREE\ to \SB{}. For the purpose of comparison, Figure \ref{Scalability} (b) shows the performance of the Expat parser on each of the processor cores.
    9 A performance improvement of less than 5\% is observed when executing Expat on \CITHREE\ over \CO\
    10 and less than 10\% on \SB\ over \CITHREE{}.
     3Figure \ref{Scalability} (a) demonstrates the average XML
     4well-formedness checking performance of Parabix2 for each of the
     5workloads and as executed on each of the processor cores --- \CO\,
     6\CITHREE\ and \SB{}.  Processing time is shown in terms of bit stream
     7based operations executed in `bit-space' and postprocessing operations
     8executed in `byte-space'.  In the Parabix2 parser, bit-space parallel
     9bit stream parser operations consist primarily of SIMD instructions;
     10byte-space operations consist of byte comparisons across arrays of
     11values. Executing Parabix2 on \CITHREE{} over \CO\ results in an
     12average performance improvement of 17\% in bit stream processing
     13whereas migrating Parabix2 from \CITHREE{} to \SB{} results in a 22\%
     14average performance gain. Bit space measurements are stable and
     15consistent across each of the source inputs and cores. Postprocessing
     16operations demonstrate data dependent variance. Performance gains from
     1718\% to 31\% performance are observered in migrating Parabix2 from
     18\CO\ to \CITHREE{}; 0\% to 17\% performance from \CITHREE\ to
     19\SB{}. For the purpose of comparison, Figure \ref{Scalability} (b)
     20shows the performance of the Expat parser on each of the processor
     21cores.  A performance improvement of less than 5\% is observed when
     22executing Expat on \CITHREE\ over \CO\ and less than 10\% on \SB\ over
     23\CITHREE{}.
    1124
    12 Overall, Parabix2 scales better than Expat. Simply executing identical Parabix2 object code on \SB\ results in an overall performance improvement
    13 up to 26\%. Additional performance aspects of Parabix2 on \SB\ with AVX instructions are discussed in the following sections.
     25Overall, Parabix2 scales better than Expat. Simply executing identical
     26Parabix2 object code on \SB\ results in an overall performance
     27improvement up to 26\%. Additional performance aspects of Parabix2 on
     28\SB\ with AVX instructions are discussed in the following sections.
    1429
    1530\begin{figure}
     
    2843\subsection{Power and Energy}
    2944
    30 Figure \ref{power_Parabix2} shows the average power consumption of Parabix2 over each workload and as executed on each of the processor cores --- \CO{}, \CITHREE\ and \SB{}.
    31 Average power consumption on \CO{} is 32 watts. Execution on \CITHREE\ results in 30\% power saving over \CO{}.
    32 \SB\ saves 25\% of the power compared with \CITHREE\ and consumes only 15 watts.
     45Figure \ref{power_Parabix2} shows the average power consumption of
     46Parabix2 over each workload and as executed on each of the processor
     47cores --- \CO{}, \CITHREE\ and \SB{}.  Average power consumption on
     48\CO{} is 32 watts. Execution on \CITHREE\ results in 30\% power saving
     49over \CO{}.  \SB\ saves 25\% of the power compared with \CITHREE\ and
     50consumes only 15 watts.
    3351
    3452In XML parsing we observe energy consumption is dependent on processing time. That is, a reduction in processing time results in a directly proportional reduction in energy consumption.
    3553With newer processor cores comes improvements in application performance. As a result, Parabix2 executed on \SB\ consumes 72\% to 75\% less energy than Parabix2 on \CO{}.
    3654
    37 \begin{figure}
    38 \begin{center}
    39 \includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/power_Parabix2.pdf}
    40 \end{center}
    41 \caption{Average Power of Parabix2 (watts)}
    42 \label{power_Parabix2}
    43 \end{figure}
     55
     56
    4457
    4558\begin{figure}
    46 \begin{center}
     59\centering
     60\subfigure[Avg. Power of Parabix on various hardware (Watts)]{
     61\includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/power_Parabix2.pdf}
     62\label{power_Parabix2}
     63}
     64\hfill
     65\centering
     66\subfigure[Avg. Energy Consumption on various hardware (nJ per kB)]{
    4767\includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/energy_Parabix2.pdf}
    48 \end{center}
    49 \caption{Energy consumption of Parabix2 (nJ/B)}
    5068\label{energy_Parabix2}
     69}
    5170\end{figure}
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.