Ikki Fujiwara, Michihiro Koibuchi National Institute of...

Ikki Fujiwara,

Michihiro Koibuchi National Institute of Informatics

Hiroki Matsutani Keio University

Henri Casanova University of Hawaii at Manoa

IPDPS 2014 / May 20th, 2014 / Phoenix, Arizona, USA

The Light Speed is Fixed

2014-05-20

2

Koibuchi Lab @ National Institute of Informatics

c ≈ 0.3 m/ns c ≈ 0.2 m/ns

= 5.00 ns/m

Switch Delay is Continuously Decreasing

2014-05-20

3


1 hop =

÷ 5 ns/m =

140 ns

QLogic 12300

28 m

200 ns

Cisco SFS7000D

40 m

60 ns

A future product

?

12 m

Switch delay will no longer dominate the end-to-end

communication latency

Switch delay

Equivalent

cable length

What Happens in the Future

2014-05-20

4


0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

0 60 120 180

Maxi

mu

m late

ncy

[μ

s]

Switch delay [ns]

Random

degree=11

diameter=5

Hypercube

degree=11

diameter=11

Traditional Hypercube outperforms the same-degree

Random topology!

Topology Design Trends

2014-05-20

5


Geometrical Design Topological Design

Ring+Random [Koibuchi et al. ISCA12]

HyperX [Ahn et al. SC09]

Jellyfish [Singla et al. NDSI12]

Skywalk

Torus / Hypercube

Introduction

Skywalk construction

Intra-cabinet links

Inter-cabinet links

Graph analysis

Cycle-accurate simulation

Conclusion

Agenda

2014-05-20

6


Intra-cabinet Links

2014-05-20

7


Switch Hosts (compute nodes) *

Cabinet

* Hereafter the hosts are omitted

1 Randomly connect the switches in each cabinet — Possibly fully connected

Inter-cabinet Links

2014-05-20

8


Floor

Cabinets

2 Randomly connect the

cabinets in each row

Inter-cabinet Links

2014-05-20

9



cabinets in each column

4 Randomly connect the remaining cabinets (optional)



Skywalk Construction

2014-05-20

10


4 Randomly connect the remaining cabinets (optional)


cabinets in each column



1 Randomly connect the switches in each cabinet — Possibly fully connected

Skywalk Details

Parameters

z = Number of switch in each cabinet

c = Number of cabinets

di = Number of intra-cabinet links at a switch

do = Number of inter-cabinet links at a switch

d = di + do = Total degree

Cyclic linking

Inter-cabinet links are connected to one of the switches in that

cabinet in a cyclic manner

Fastest routing

Packets choose lowest-latency paths (not shortest-hop paths)

2014-05-20

11


Standpoints of Skywalk and Dragonfly

2014-05-20

12



Ring+Random [Koibuchi et al. ISCA12]

HyperX [Ahn et al. SC09]

Jellyfish [Singla et al. NDSI12]

Torus / Hypercube

Dragonfly 2-layer hierarchical meta-topology

with intra-group and inter-group

sub-topologies

Skywalk A Dragonfly instance

• group = cabinet

• intra-group: random

• inter-group: random

Introduction


Graph analysis

Switch delay vs. latency

Degree vs. latency

Total cable length vs. latency

Network size vs. latency

Cabinet size vs. latency


Conclusion

Agenda

2014-05-20

13


Graph Analysis: Setup

Parameters: (unless otherwise specified)

z = 8 switches/cabinet

c = 256 cabinets arranged in a 16×16 grid

N = 2,048 switches in total

Switch delay = 60 ns

Packet injection delay = 300 ns

Featured topologies:

Skywalk fully connected for intra-cabinet

Random d-degree uniform random

Torus 3-D (8×16×16) or 5-D (8×4×4×4×4)

HyperX tailored to map onto the floorplan

Dragonfly group=cabinet, fully connected for both intra- and inter-group

See the proceeding for average latency

2014-05-20

14


Switch Delay vs. Latency

2014-05-20

15


* HyperX is omitted. See the proceeding for complete results.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 100 200 300 400 500

Maxi

mu

m late

ncy

[μ

s]

Switch delay [ns]

3-D Torus

d=6

Hypercube

d=11 Random

d=11

Skywalk

d=11

Dragonfly

d=39

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 20 40 60

Skywalk leads to the lowest latency with ultra-low-delay

switches and also with high-delay switches

d = degree

Degree vs. Latency

2014-05-20

16


0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

0 8 16 24 32 40

Maxi

mu

m late

ncy

[μ

s]

Degree

5-D Torus

HyperX

Random

Skywalk

Dragonfly

* Skywalk with di = {1, 4} and Hypercube are omitted. See the proceeding for complete results.

Skywalk leads to a desirable tradeoff between degree and

latency

Total Cable Length vs. Latency

2014-05-20

17


0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

0 200 400 600

Maxi

mu

m late

ncy

[μ

s]

Total cable length [km]

5-D Torus

HyperX

Random

Skywalk

Dragonfly

* Skywalk with di = {1, 4} and Hypercube are omitted. See the proceeding for complete results.

Skywalk saves 90% cable length over Dragonfly with only

19% higher maximum latency

Network Size vs. Latency

2014-05-20

18


0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

128 512 2048 8192

Maxi

mu

m late

ncy

[μ

s]

#Switch

Skywalk

d=8Skywalk

d=16 Skywalk

d=32

Skywalk

d=64

Dragonfly

d=9

3-D Torus

d=6

Dragonfly

d=39

Dragonfly

d=135

Dragonfly

d=15

* Hypercube is omitted. See the proceeding for complete results.

Skywalk scales well with relatively low degree

d = degree

Cabinet Size vs. Latency

2014-05-20

19


0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

2 8 32 128

Maxi

mu

m late

ncy

[μ

s]

#Switch/cabinet

Skywalk

d=8

Skywalk

d=16

Skywalk

d=32

Skywalk has an optimal cabinet size because it becomes

similar to Random with very large or very small cabinets

d = degree

Introduction


Graph analysis


Throughput vs. latency

Conclusion

Agenda

2014-05-20

20


Cycle-accurate Simulation: Setup

Topology parameters: h = 8 hosts/switch

z = 4 switches/cabinet

c = 64 cabinets arranged in an 8×8 grid

N = 256 switches in total

Switch delay = 60 ns

Simulation parameters: Adaptive deadlock-free routing

4 virtual channels

256 bits/flit × 33 flits/packet = 8,448 bits/packet

96 Gbps/switch ÷ 8 hosts/switch = 12 Gbps/host max.

Random uniform traffic

See the proceeding for: Bit reversal traffic

Matrix transpose traffic

2014-05-20

21


Cycle-accurate Simulation: Result

2014-05-20

22


* HyperX is omitted. See the proceeding for complete results.

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Late

ncy

[μ

s]

Accepted traffic [Gbit/sec/host]

Skywalk

d=11

Hypercube

d=8

Dragonfly

d=19

3-D Torus

d=6Random

d=11

Skywalk achieves low latency and higher throughput than

Random at lower degree than Dragonfly

d = degree

Introduction


Graph analysis


Conclusion

Agenda

2014-05-20

23


Wrap-up

The speed of light affects topology design once ultra-low-

delay switches are put into practical use

We propose the “Skywalk” topology that uses randomness

in a layout-conscious way

Skywalk achieves desirable tradeoffs between end-to-end

latency and degree or cable length

Cycle-accurate simulation show that Skywalk provides not

only low latency but also high throughput at low degree

2014-05-20

24



Skywalk

Ikki Fujiwara, Michihiro Koibuchi National Institute of...

Documents

Transcript of Ikki Fujiwara, Michihiro Koibuchi National Institute of...