skip to main content


Title: Exploring the Potential of Next Generation Software-Defined In-Memory Frameworks
As in-memory data analytics become increasingly important in a wide range of domains, the ability to develop large-scale and sustainable platforms faces significant challenges related to storage latency and memory size constraints. These challenges can be resolved by adopting new and effective formulations and novel architectures such as software-defined infrastructure. This paper investigates the key issue of data persistency for in-memory processing systems by evaluating persistence methods using different storage and memory devices for Apache Spark and the use of Alluxio. It also proposes and evaluates via simulation a Spark execution model for using disaggregated off- rack memory and non-volatile memory targeting next-generation software-defined infrastructure. Experimental results provide better understanding of behaviors and requirements for improving data persistence in current in-memory systems and provide data points to better understand requirements and design choices for next-generation software-defined infrastructure. The findings indicate that in-memory processing systems can benefit from ongoing software-defined infrastructure implementations; however current frameworks need to be enhanced appropriately to run efficiently at scale.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1464317 1305375
NSF-PAR ID:
10077378
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
2018 30th International Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing
Page Range / eLocation ID:
201-208
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. As data analytics applications become increasingly important in a wide range of domains, the ability to develop large-scale and sustainable platforms and software infrastructure to support these applications has significant potential to drive research and innovation in both science and business domains. This paper characterizes performance and power-related behavior trends and tradeoffs of the two predominant frameworks for Big Data analytics (i.e., Apache Hadoop and Spark) for a range of representative applications. It also evaluates system design knobs, such as storage and network technologies and power capping techniques. Experimental results from empirical executions provide meaningful data points for exploring the potential of software-defined infrastructure for Big Data processing systems through simulation. The results provide better understanding of the design space to build multi-criteria application-centric models as well as show significant advantages of software-defined infrastructure in terms of execution time, energy and cost. It motivates further research focused on in-memory processing formulations regarding systems with deeper memory hierarchies and software-defined infrastructure. 
    more » « less
  2. The traditional von Neumann architecture limits the increase in computing efficiency and results in massive power consumption in modern computers due to the separation of storage and processing units. The novel neuromorphic computation system, an in-memory computing architecture with low power consumption, is aimed to break the bottleneck and meet the needs of the next generation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Thus, it is urgent to find a memory technology to implement the neuromorphic computing nanosystem. Nowadays, the silicon-based flash memory dominates non-volatile memory market, however, it is facing challenging issues to achieve the requirements of future data storage device development due to the drawbacks, such as scaling issue, relatively slow operation speed, and high voltage for program/erase operations. The emerging resistive random-access memory (RRAM) has prompted extensive research as its simple two-terminal structure, including top electrode (TE) layer, bottom electrode (BE) layer, and an intermediate resistive switching (RS) layer. It can utilize a temporary and reversible dielectric breakdown to cause the RS phenomenon between the high resistance state (HRS) and the low resistance state (LRS). RRAM is expected to outperform conventional memory device with the advantages, notably its low-voltage operation, short programming time, great cyclic stability, and good scalability. Among the materials for RS layer, indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) has shown attractive prospects in abundance and high atomic diffusion property of oxygen atoms, transparency. Additionally, its electrical properties can be easily modulated by controlling the stoichiometric ratio of indium and gallium as well as oxygen potential in the sputter gas. Moreover, since the IGZO can be applied to both the thin-film transistor (TFT) channel and RS layer, it has a great potential for fully integrated transparent electronics application. In this work, we proposed amorphous transparent IGZO-based RRAMs and investigated switching behaviors of the memory cells prepared with different top electrodes. First, ITO was choosing to serve as both TE and BE to achieve high transmittance. A multi-target magnetron sputtering system was employed to deposit all three layers (TE, RS, BE layers) on glass substrate. I-V characteristics were evaluated by a semiconductor parameter analyzer, and the bipolar RS feature of our RRAM devices was demonstrated by typical butterfly curves. The optical transmission analysis was carried out via a UV-Vis spectrometer and the average transmittance was around 80% out of entire devices in the visible-light wavelength range, implying high transparency. We adjusted the oxygen partial pressure during the sputtering of IGZO to optimize the property because the oxygen vacancy concentration governs the RS performance. Electrode selection is crucial and can impact the performance of the whole device. Thus, Cu TE was chosen for our second type of device because the diffusion of Cu ions can be beneficial for the formation of the conductive filament (CF). A ~5 nm SiO 2 barrier layer was employed between TE and RS layers to confine the diffusion of Cu into the RS layer. At the same time, this SiO 2 inserting layer can provide an additional interfacial series resistance in the device to lower the off current, consequently, improve the on/off ratio and whole performance. Finally, an oxygen affinity metal Ti was selected as the TE for our third type of device because the concentration of the oxygen atoms can be shifted towards the Ti electrode, which provides an oxygengettering activity near the Ti metal. This process may in turn lead to the formation of a sub-stoichiometric region in the neighboring oxide that is believed to be the origin of better performance. In conclusion, the transparent amorphous IGZO-based RRAMs were established. To tune the property of RS layer, the sputtering conditions of RS were varied. To investigate the influence of TE selections on switching performance of RRAMs, we integrated a set of TE materials, and a barrier layer on IGZO-based RRAM and compared the switch characteristics. Our encouraging results clearly demonstrate that IGZO is a promising material in RRAM applications and breaking the bottleneck of current memory technologies. 
    more » « less
  3. Big data systems have evolved beyond scalable storage and rudimentary processing to supporting complex data analytics in near real-time, such as Apache Spark Streaming [31], Comet [14], Incremental Hadoop [17], MapReduce Online [7], Apache Storm [28], StreamScope [19], and IBM Streams [1]. These systems are particularly challenging to build owing to two requirements: low latency and fault tolerance. Many of the above systems evolved from a batch processing design and are thus architected to break down a steady stream of input events into a series of micro-batches and then perform batch-like computations on each successive micro-batch as a micro-batch job. In terms of latency, the systems are expected to respond to each micro-batch in seconds with an output The constant operation further entails that the systems must be robust to hardware, software and network-level failures. To incorporate fault-tolerance, the common approach is to use checkpointing and rollback recovery, whereby a streaming application periodically saves its in-memory state to persistent storage. 
    more » « less
  4. Using flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) as main memory has been proposed as a practical solution towards scaling memory capacity for data-intensive applications. However, almost all existing approaches rely on the paging mechanism to move data between SSDs and host DRAM. This inevitably incurs significant performance overhead and extra I/O traffic. Thanks to the byte-addressability supported by the PCIe interconnect and the internal memory in SSD controllers, it is feasible to access SSDs in both byte and block granularity today. Exploiting the benefits of SSD's byte-accessibility in today's memory-storage hierarchy is, however, challenging as it lacks systems support and abstractions for programs. In this paper, we present FlatFlash, an optimized unified memory-storage hierarchy, to efficiently use byte-addressable SSD as part of the main memory. We extend the virtual memory management to provide a unified memory interface so that programs can access data across SSD and DRAM in byte granularity seamlessly. We propose a lightweight, adaptive page promotion mechanism between SSD and DRAM to gain benefits from both the byte-addressable large SSD and fast DRAM concurrently and transparently, while avoiding unnecessary page movements. Furthermore, we propose an abstraction of byte-granular data persistence to exploit the persistence nature of SSDs, upon which we rethink the design primitives of crash consistency of several representative software systems that require data persistence, such as file systems and databases. Our evaluation with a variety of applications demonstrates that, compared to the current unified memory-storage systems, FlatFlash improves the performance for memory-intensive applications by up to 2.3x, reduces the tail latency for latency-critical applications by up to 2.8x, scales the throughput for transactional database by up to 3.0x, and decreases the meta-data persistence overhead for file systems by up to 18.9x. FlatFlash also improves the cost-effectiveness by up to 3.8x compared to DRAM-only systems, while enhancing the SSD lifetime significantly. 
    more » « less
  5. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 
    more » « less