# Changeset 1335 for docs/HPCA2012/06-scalability.tex

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

Working on evaluation. Fixed Figure sizes

File:
1 edited

### Legend:

Unmodified
 r1302 \section{Scalability} \subsection{Performance} 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{}. Processing time is shown in terms of bit stream based operations executed in bit-space' and postprocessing operations executed in byte-space'. In the Parabix2 parser, bit-space parallel bit stream parser operations consist primarily of SIMD instructions; byte-space operations consist of byte comparisons across arrays of values. Executing Parabix2 on \CITHREE{} over \CO\ results in an average performance improvement 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 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. A performance improvement of less than 5\% is observed when executing Expat on \CITHREE\ over \CO\ and less than 10\% on \SB\ over \CITHREE{}. 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{}.  Processing time is shown in terms of bit stream based operations executed in bit-space' and postprocessing operations executed in byte-space'.  In the Parabix2 parser, bit-space parallel bit stream parser operations consist primarily of SIMD instructions; byte-space operations consist of byte comparisons across arrays of values. Executing Parabix2 on \CITHREE{} over \CO\ results in an average performance improvement 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 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.  A performance improvement of less than 5\% is observed when executing Expat on \CITHREE\ over \CO\ and less than 10\% on \SB\ over \CITHREE{}. Overall, Parabix2 scales better than Expat. Simply executing identical Parabix2 object code on \SB\ results in an overall performance improvement up to 26\%. Additional performance aspects of Parabix2 on \SB\ with AVX instructions are discussed in the following sections. Overall, Parabix2 scales better than Expat. Simply executing identical Parabix2 object code on \SB\ results in an overall performance improvement up to 26\%. Additional performance aspects of Parabix2 on \SB\ with AVX instructions are discussed in the following sections. \begin{figure} \subsection{Power and Energy} 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{}. Average power consumption on \CO{} is 32 watts. Execution on \CITHREE\ results in 30\% power saving over \CO{}. \SB\ saves 25\% of the power compared with \CITHREE\ and consumes only 15 watts. 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{}.  Average power consumption on \CO{} is 32 watts. Execution on \CITHREE\ results in 30\% power saving over \CO{}.  \SB\ saves 25\% of the power compared with \CITHREE\ and consumes only 15 watts. In 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. With 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{}. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/power_Parabix2.pdf} \end{center} \caption{Average Power of Parabix2 (watts)} \label{power_Parabix2} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \centering \subfigure[Avg. Power of Parabix on various hardware (Watts)]{ \includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/power_Parabix2.pdf} \label{power_Parabix2} } \hfill \centering \subfigure[Avg. Energy Consumption on various hardware (nJ per kB)]{ \includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/energy_Parabix2.pdf} \end{center} \caption{Energy consumption of Parabix2 (nJ/B)} \label{energy_Parabix2} } \end{figure}