Computer comparisons in the presence of performance variation

Abstract

Performance variability, stemming from nondeterministic hardware and software behaviors or deterministic behaviors such as measurement bias, is a well-known phenomenon of computer systems which increases the difficulty of comparing computer performance metrics and is slated to become even more of a concern as interest in Big Data analytic increases. Conventional methods use various measures (such as geometric mean) to quantify the performance of different benchmarks to compare computers without considering this variability which may lead to wrong conclusions. In this paper, we propose three resampling methods for performance evaluation and comparison: a randomization test for a general performance comparison between two computers, bootstrapping confidence estimation, and an empirical distribution and five-number-summary for performance evaluation. The results show that for both PARSEC and highvariance BigDataBench benchmarks 1) the randomization test substantially improves our chance to identify the difference between performance comparisons when the difference is not large; 2) bootstrapping confidence estimation provides an accurate confidence interval for the performance comparison measure (e.g., ratio of geometric means); and 3) when the difference is very small, a single test is often not enough to reveal the nature of the computer performance due to the variability of computer systems.We further propose using empirical distribution to evaluate computer performance and a five-number-summary to summarize computer performance. We use published SPEC 2006 results to investigate the sources of performance variation by predicting performance and relative variation for 8,236 machines. We achieve a correlation of predicted performances of 0.992 and a correlation of predicted and measured relative variation of 0.5. Finally, we propose the utilization of a novel biplotting technique to visualize the effectiveness of benchmarks and cluster machines by behavior. We illustrate the results and conclusion through detailed Monte Carlo simulation studies and real examples.

Keywords

performance of systems / variation / performance attributes / measurement / evaluation / modeling / simulation of multiple-processor systems / experimental design / Big Data

References

[1] Alameldeen A R, Wood D A. Variability in architectural simulations of multi-threaded workloads. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture. 2003, 7–18

[2] George A, Buytaer D, Eeckhout L. Statistically rigorous java performance evaluation. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2007, 42(10): 57–76

[3] Mytkowicz T, Diwan A, Hauswirth M, Sweeney P F. Producing wrong data without doing anything obviously wrong. In: Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. 2009, 265–276

[4] Krishnamurthi S, Vitek J. The real software crisis: repeatability as a core value. Communications of ACM, 2015, 58(3): 34–36

[5] Chen T, Guo Q, Temam O, Wu Y, Bao Y, Xu Z, Chen Y. Statistical performance comparisons of computers. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2015, 64(5): 1442–1455

[6] Freund R J, Mohr D, Wilson W J. Statistical Methods. 3rd ed. London: Academic Press, 2010

[7] Chen T, Chen Y, Guo Q, Temam O, Wu Y, Hu W. Statistical performance comparisons of computers. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium On High Performance Computer Architecture. 2012, 1–12

[8] Hollander M, Wolfe D A. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999

[9] Moore D, McCabe G P, Craig B. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. 7th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman Press, 2010

[10] Edgington E S. Randomization Tests. 3rd ed. New York: Marcel- Dekker, 1995

[11] Davison A C, Hinkley D V. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997

[12] Wang L, Zhan J, Luo C, Zhu Y, Yang Q, He Y. Bigdatabench: a big data benchmark suite from internet services. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture. 2014, 488–499

[13] Gower J C, Lubbe S G, Roux N L. Understanding Biplots. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2011

[14] Efron B, Tibshirani R J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994

[15] Fleming P J, Wallace J J. How not to lie with statistics: the correct way to summarize benchmark results. Communications of the ACM, 1986, 29(3): 218–221

[16] Johnson R A. Statistics: Principles and Methods. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009

[17] Bienia C, Kumar S, Singh J P, Li K. The PARSEC benchmark suite: characterization and architectural implications. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques. 2008, 72–81

[18] Citron D, Hurani A, Gnadrey A. The harmonic or geometric mean: does it really matter? ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, 2006, 34(4): 18–25

[19] Iqbal M F, John L K. Confusion by all means. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Unique Chips and Systems. 2010, 1–6

[20] Mashey J R. War of the benchmark means: time for a truce. ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, 2004, 32(4): 1–14

[21] Hennessy J L, Patterson D A. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach. 4th ed. Walthan: Morgan Kaufmann, 2007

[22] Eeckhout L. Computer Architecture Performance Evaluation Methods. California: Morgan & Claypool Press, 2010

[23] Lilja D J. Measuring Computer Performance: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000

[24] Oliveira A, Fischmeister S, Diwan A, Hauswirth M, Sweeney P F. Why you should care about quantile regression. In: Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. 2013, 207–218

[25] Patil S, Lilja D J. Using resampling techniques to compute confidence intervals for the harmonic mean of rate-based performance metrics. IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, 2010, 9(1): 1–4

[26] Iosup A, Yigitbasi N, Epema D H J. On the performance variability of production cloud services. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACMInternational Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, Newport Beach. 2011, 104–113

[27] Leitner P, Cito J. Patterns in the chaos—a study of performance variation and predictability in public IaaS clouds. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 2016, 16(3): 15

[28] Zhang W, Ji X, Song B, Yu S, Chen H, Li T, Yew P, Zhao W. Varcatcher: a pramework for tackling performance variability of parallel workloads on multi-core. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2016, 28: 1215–1228

[29] Pusukuri K K, Gupta R, Bhuyan A N. Thread tranquilizer: dynamically reducing performance variation. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, 2012, 8(4): 46–66

[30] Jimenez I, Maltzahn C, Lofstead J, Moody A, Mohror K, Arpaci-Dusseau R, Arpaci-Dusseau A. Characterizing and reducing crossplatform performance variability using OS-level virtualization. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Variability in Parallel and Distributed Systems. 2016, 1077–1080

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2018 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature