More Like this

1. Composable Infrastructures for an Academic Research Environment: Lessons Learned

   https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPSW55747.2022.00208  

   Long, Lance ; Bargo, Timothy ; Renambot, Luc ; Brown, Maxine ; Johnson, Andrew E. ( May 2022 , 36th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW))

   Composable infrastructure holds the promise of accelerating the pace of academic research and discovery by enabling researchers to tailor the resources of a machine (e.g., GPUs, storage, NICs), on-demand, to address application needs. We were first introduced to composable infrastructure in 2018, and at the same time, there was growing demand among our College of Engineering faculty for GPU systems for data science, artificial intelligence / machine learning / deep learning, and visualization. Many purchased their own individual desktop or deskside systems, a few pursued more costly cloud and HPC solutions, and others looked to the College or campus computer center for GPU resources which, at the time, were scarce. After surveying the diverse needs of our faculty and studying product offerings by a few nascent startups in the composable infrastructure sector, we applied for and received a grant from the National Science Foundation in November 2019 to purchase a mid-scale system, configured to our specifications, for use by faculty and students for research and research training. This paper describes our composable infrastructure solution and implementation for our academic community. Given how modern workflows are progressively moving to containers and cloud frameworks (using Kubernetes) and to programming notebooks (primarily Jupyter),more »both for ease of use and for ensuring reproducible experiments, we initially adapted these tools for our system. We have since made it simpler to use our system, and now provide our users with a public facing JupyterHub server. We also added an expansion chassis to our system to enable composable co-location, which is a shared central architecture in which our researchers can insert and integrate specialized resources (GPUs, accelerators, networking cards, etc.) needed for their research. In February 2020, installation of our system was finalized and made operational and we began providing access to faculty in the College of Engineering. Now, two years later, it is used by over 40 faculty and students plus some external collaborators for research and research training. Their use cases and experiences are briefly described in this paper. Composable infrastructure has proven to be a useful computational system for workload variability, uneven applications, and modern workflows in academic environments.« less
2. Expanding an HPC Cluster to Support the Computational Demands of Digital Pathology

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2018.8615614  

   Campbell, C. ; Mecca, N. ; Duong, T. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2018 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad ; Selesnick, Ivan ; Picone, Joseph (Ed.)

   The goal of this work was to design a low-cost computing facility that can support the development of an open source digital pathology corpus containing 1M images [1]. A single image from a clinical-grade digital pathology scanner can range in size from hundreds of megabytes to five gigabytes. A 1M image database requires over a petabyte (PB) of disk space. To do meaningful work in this problem space requires a significant allocation of computing resources. The improvements and expansions to our HPC (highperformance computing) cluster, known as Neuronix [2], required to support working with digital pathology fall into two broad categories: computation and storage. To handle the increased computational burden and increase job throughput, we are using Slurm [3] as our scheduler and resource manager. For storage, we have designed and implemented a multi-layer filesystem architecture to distribute a filesystem across multiple machines. These enhancements, which are entirely based on open source software, have extended the capabilities of our cluster and increased its cost-effectiveness. Slurm has numerous features that allow it to generalize to a number of different scenarios. Among the most notable is its support for GPU (graphics processing unit) scheduling. GPUs can offer a tremendous performance increase inmore »machine learning applications [4] and Slurm’s built-in mechanisms for handling them was a key factor in making this choice. Slurm has a general resource (GRES) mechanism that can be used to configure and enable support for resources beyond the ones provided by the traditional HPC scheduler (e.g. memory, wall-clock time), and GPUs are among the GRES types that can be supported by Slurm [5]. In addition to being able to track resources, Slurm does strict enforcement of resource allocation. This becomes very important as the computational demands of the jobs increase, so that they have all the resources they need, and that they don’t take resources from other jobs. It is a common practice among GPU-enabled frameworks to query the CUDA runtime library/drivers and iterate over the list of GPUs, attempting to establish a context on all of them. Slurm is able to affect the hardware discovery process of these jobs, which enables a number of these jobs to run alongside each other, even if the GPUs are in exclusive-process mode. To store large quantities of digital pathology slides, we developed a robust, extensible distributed storage solution. We utilized a number of open source tools to create a single filesystem, which can be mounted by any machine on the network. At the lowest layer of abstraction are the hard drives, which were split into 4 60-disk chassis, using 8TB drives. To support these disks, we have two server units, each equipped with Intel Xeon CPUs and 128GB of RAM. At the filesystem level, we have implemented a multi-layer solution that: (1) connects the disks together into a single filesystem/mountpoint using the ZFS (Zettabyte File System) [6], and (2) connects filesystems on multiple machines together to form a single mountpoint using Gluster [7]. ZFS, initially developed by Sun Microsystems, provides disk-level awareness and a filesystem which takes advantage of that awareness to provide fault tolerance. At the filesystem level, ZFS protects against data corruption and the infamous RAID write-hole bug by implementing a journaling scheme (the ZFS intent log, or ZIL) and copy-on-write functionality. Each machine (1 controller + 2 disk chassis) has its own separate ZFS filesystem. Gluster, essentially a meta-filesystem, takes each of these, and provides the means to connect them together over the network and using distributed (similar to RAID 0 but without striping individual files), and mirrored (similar to RAID 1) configurations [8]. By implementing these improvements, it has been possible to expand the storage and computational power of the Neuronix cluster arbitrarily to support the most computationally-intensive endeavors by scaling horizontally. We have greatly improved the scalability of the cluster while maintaining its excellent price/performance ratio [1].« less
3. MLPerf™ HPC: A Holistic Benchmark Suite for Scientific Machine Learning on HPC Systems

   https://doi.org/10.1109/MLHPC54614.2021.00009  

   Farrell, Steven ; Emani, Murali ; Balma, Jacob ; Drescher, Lukas ; Drozd, Aleksandr ; Fink, Andreas ; Fox, Geoffrey ; Kanter, David ; Kurth, Thorsten ; Mattson, Peter ; et al ( November 2021 , 2021 IEEE/ACM Workshop on Machine Learning in High Performance Computing Environments (MLHPC))

   Scientific communities are increasingly adopting machine learning and deep learning models in their applications to accelerate scientific insights. High performance computing systems are pushing the frontiers of performance with a rich diversity of hardware resources and massive scale-out capabilities. There is a critical need to understand fair and effective benchmarking of machine learning applications that are representative of real-world scientific use cases. MLPerf ™ is a community-driven standard to benchmark machine learning workloads, focusing on end-to-end performance metrics. In this paper, we introduce MLPerf HPC, a benchmark suite of large-scale scientific machine learning training applications, driven by the MLCommons ™ Association. We present the results from the first submission round including a diverse set of some of the world’s largest HPC systems. We develop a systematic framework for their joint analysis and compare them in terms of data staging, algorithmic convergence and compute performance. As a result, we gain a quantitative understanding of optimizations on different subsystems such as staging and on-node loading of data, compute-unit utilization and communication scheduling enabling overall >10× (end-to-end) performance improvements through system scaling. Notably, our analysis shows a scale-dependent interplay between the dataset size, a system’s memory hierarchy and training convergence that underlines themore »importance of near-compute storage. To overcome the data-parallel scalability challenge at large batch-sizes, we discuss specific learning techniques and hybrid data-and-model parallelism that are effective on large systems. We conclude by characterizing each benchmark with respect to low-level memory, I/O and network behaviour to parameterize extended roofline performance models in future rounds.« less
4. Edge computing at sea: high-throughput classification of in-situ plankton imagery for adaptive sampling

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1187771  

   Schmid, Moritz S. ; Daprano, Dominic ; Damle, Malhar M. ; Sullivan, Christopher M. ; Sponaugle, Su ; Cousin, Charles ; Guigand, Cedric ; Cowen, Robert K. ( June 2023 , Frontiers in Marine Science)

   The small sizes of most marine plankton necessitate that plankton sampling occur on fine spatial scales, yet our questions often span large spatial areas. Underwater imaging can provide a solution to this sampling conundrum but collects large quantities of data that require an automated approach to image analysis. Machine learning for plankton classification, and high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructure, are critical to rapid image processing; however, these assets, especially HPC infrastructure, are only available post-cruise leading to an ‘after-the-fact’ view of plankton community structure. To be responsive to the often-ephemeral nature of oceanographic features and species assemblages in highly dynamic current systems, real-time data are key for adaptive oceanographic sampling. Here we used the new In-situ Ichthyoplankton Imaging System-3 (ISIIS-3) in the Northern California Current (NCC) in conjunction with an edge server to classify imaged plankton in real-time into 170 classes. This capability together with data visualization in a heavy.ai dashboard makes adaptive real-time decision-making and sampling at sea possible. Dual ISIIS-Deep-focus Particle Imager (DPI) cameras sample 180 L s -1 , leading to >10 GB of video per min. Imaged organisms are in the size range of 250 µm to 15 cm and include abundant crustaceans, fragile taxa (e.g., hydromedusae, salps),more »faster swimmers (e.g., krill), and rarer taxa (e.g., larval fishes). A deep learning pipeline deployed on the edge server used multithreaded CPU-based segmentation and GPU-based classification to process the imagery. AVI videos contain 50 sec of data and can contain between 23,000 - 225,000 particle and plankton segments. Processing one AVI through segmentation and classification takes on average 3.75 mins, depending on biological productivity. A heavyDB database monitors for newly processed data and is linked to a heavy.ai dashboard for interactive data visualization. We describe several examples where imaging, AI, and data visualization enable adaptive sampling that can have a transformative effect on oceanography. We envision AI-enabled adaptive sampling to have a high impact on our ability to resolve biological responses to important oceanographic features in the NCC, such as oxygen minimum zones, or harmful algal bloom thin layers, which affect the health of the ecosystem, fisheries, and local communities.« less
5. Issues in the Reproducibility of Deep Learning Results

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB47826.2019.9037840  

   Jean-Paul, S. ; Elseify, T. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2019 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)

   The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should producemore »identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues.« less