skip to main content
10.1145/2503210.2503283acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing the effects of data compression in simulations using physically motivated metrics

Published:17 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper examines whether lossy compression can be used effectively in physics simulations as a possible strategy to combat the expected data-movement bottleneck in future high performance computing architectures. We show that, for the codes and simulations we tested, compression levels of 3--5X can be applied without causing significant changes to important physical quantities.

Rather than applying signal processing error metrics, we utilize physics-based metrics appropriate for each code to assess the impact of compression. We evaluate three different simulation codes: a Lagrangian shock-hydrodynamics code, an Eulerian higher-order hydrodynamics turbulence modeling code, and an Eulerian coupled laser-plasma interaction code. We compress relevant quantities after each time-step to approximate the effects of tightly coupled compression and study the compression rates to estimate memory and disk-bandwidth reduction. We find that the error characteristics of compression algorithms must be carefully considered in the context of the underlying physics being modeled.

References

  1. R. L. Berger, B. F. Lasinski, A. B. Langdon, T. B. Kaiser, B. B. Afeyan, B. I. Cohen, C. H. Still, and E. A. Williams. Influence of spatial and temporal laser beam smoothing on stimulated brillouin scattering in filamentary laser light. Physical Review Letters, 75(6):1078--1081, Aug. 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Burtscher and P. Ratanaworabhan. High throughput compression of double-precision floating-point data. In Data Compression Conference, pages 293--302, Mar. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. W. H. Cabot and A. W. Cook. Reynolds number effects on Rayleigh-Taylor instability with possible implications for type-Ia supernovae. Nature Physics, 2:562--568, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. E. J. Candès and M. B. Wakin. An introduction to compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25(2):21--30, Mar. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. A. W. Cook, W. Cabot, and P. L. Miller. The mixing transition in Rayleigh--Taylor instability. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 511:333--362, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. W. Cook, W. H. Cabot, M. L. Welcome, P. L. Williams, B. J. Miller, B. R. de Supinski, and R. K. Yates. Tera-scalable algorithms for variable-density elliptic hydrodynamics with spectral accuracy. In ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, page 60, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. L. Donoho. Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52(4):1289--1306, Apr. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Fout and K.-L. Ma. An adaptive prediction-based approach to lossless compression of floating-point volume data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2295--2304, Dec. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. Huebbe and J. Kunkel. Reducing the HPC-datastorage footprint with MAFISC multidimensional adaptive filtering improved scientific data compression. Computer Science Research and Development Journal, 28(2--3):231--239, May 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. Huebbe, A. Wegener, J. Kunkel, Y. Ling, and T. Ludwig. Evaluating lossy compression on climate data. In International Supercomputing Conference, pages 343--356, June 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. L. Ibarria, P. Lindstrom, J. Rossignac, and A. Szymczak. Out-of-core compression and decompression of large n-dimensional scalar fields. Computer Graphics Forum, 22(3):343--348, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. I. Karlin, A. Bhatele, B. L. Chamberlain, J. Cohen, Z. Devito, M. Gokhale, R. Haque, R. Hornung, J. Keasler, D. Laney, E. Luke, S. Lloyd, J. McGraw, R. Neely, D. Richards, M. Schulz, C. H. Still, F. Wang, and D. Wong. LULESH programming model and performance ports overview. Technical Report LLNL-TR-608824, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dec. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. I. Karlin, A. Bhatele, J. Keasler, B. L. Chamberlain, J. Cohen, Z. DeVito, R. Haque, D. Laney, E. Luke, F. Wang, D. Richards, M. Schulz, and C. Still. Exploring traditional and emerging parallel programming models using a proxy application. In IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium, pages 919--932, May 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Keasler and R. Hornung. Hydrodynamics challenge problem. Technical Report LLNL-TR-490254, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. P. Kogge, K. Bergman, S. Borkar, D. Campbell, et al. Exascale computing study: Technology challenges in achieving exascale systems, Sept. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Lakshminarasimhan, N. Shah, S. Ethier, S. Klasky, R. Latham, R. Ross, and N. F. Samatova. Compressing the incompressible with ISABELA: In-situ reduction of spatio-temporal data. In Euro-Par Parallel Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 366--379. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Langer, B. Still, T. Bremer, D. Hinkel, B. Langdon, J. A. Levine, and E. A. Williams. Cielo full-system simulations of multi-beam laser-plasma interaction in NIF experiments. In Proceedings of the 53rd Cray User Group Meeting, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. H. Lehmann and B. Jung. In-situ data compression for flow simulation in porous media. In Parallel & Distributed Processing Techniques & Applications, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. P. Lindstrom. fpzip version 1.0.1, 2008. https://computation.llnl.gov/casc/fpzip/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. Lindstrom and M. Isenburg. Fast and efficient compression of floating-point data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(5):1245--1250, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. K. Moore. Multicore is bad news for supercomputers. IEEE Spectrum, 45(11):15, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. E. I. Moses. Overview of the National Ignition Facility. Fusion Science and Technology, 54(2):361--366, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. E. I. Moses, R. N. Boyd, B. A. Remington, C. J. Keane, and R. Al-Ayat. The National Ignition Facility: Ushering in a new age for high energy density science. Physics of Plasmas, 16(041006):1--13, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. S. Muraki. Approximation and rendering of volume data using wavelet transforms. In IEEE Visualization, pages 21--28, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Muraki. Multiscale volume representation by a dog wavelet. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 1(2):109--116, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Murphy. On the effects of memory latency and bandwidth on supercomputer application performance. IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization, pages 34--43, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. E. Schendel, Y. Jin, N. Shah, J. Chen, C. S. Chang, S.-H. Ku, S. Ethier, S. Klasky, R. Latham, R. Ross, and N. Samatova. ISOBAR preconditioner for effective and high-throughput lossless data compression. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 138--149, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. C. H. Still, R. L. Berger, A. B. Langdon, D. E. Hinkel, L. J. Suter, and E. A. Williams. Filamentation and forward Brillouin scatter of entire smoothed and aberrated laser beams. Physics of Plasmas, 7(5):2023--2032, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. E. Tasker, R. Brunino, N. Mitchell, D. Michielsen, S. Hopton, F. Pearce, G. Bryan, and T. Theuns. A test suite for quantitative comparison of hydrodynamics codes in astrophysics. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390(3):1267--1281, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. A. Wegener. Adaptive compression and decompression of bandlimited signals, Mar. 2006. http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patent/US_7009533/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. A. Wegener. Block floating point compression of signal data, Oct. 2012. http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patent/US_8301803/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A. Wegener. Universal numerical encoder and profiler reduces computing memory wall with software, FPGA, and SoC implementations. In IEEE Data Compression Conference, page 528, Mar. 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. A. Wegener, N. Chandra, Y. Ling, R. Senzig, and R. Herfkens. Effects of fixed-rate CT projection data compression on perceived and measured CT image quality. In SPIE Medical Imaging, volume 7627, Feb. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. M. L. Wilkins. Methods in Computational Physics. Academic Press, 1964.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. J. Woodring, S. Mniszewski, C. Brislawn, D. DeMarle, and J. Ahrens. Revisiting wavelet compression for large-scale climate data using JPEG 2000 and ensuring data precision. In IEEE Large Data Analysis and Visualization, pages 31--38, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Assessing the effects of data compression in simulations using physically motivated metrics

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Pierre Jouvelot

        There is an imbalance between the fast speed of central processing units (CPUs) and the long access time of memory subsystems. This is the so-called "memory wall," and it significantly limits potential performance in current and future computer architectures. One could tackle this issue by using core or disk memory compression to reduce the volume of exchanged data. Using lossless compression would preserve computational accuracy, but the expected payoff would be much lower than with more efficient lossy compression schemes. The authors of this paper discuss the practical impact of such losses on actual computations and propose APAX and fpzip, two predictive coders specialized for floating-point data. These two approaches are evaluated to determine how they affect the end results of three simulation benchmarks-LULESH, Miranda, and pF3D-which represent different domains of physics, such as hydrodynamics and laser-plasma interactions. The authors emphasize that physically meaningful differences between compressed and uncompressed runs should be evaluated, in addition to traditional measures such as mean square errors. Comparisons of data are based on, for instance, the symmetry of the computed fields, the structure of intensity histograms, the height of turbulent mixing layers, and the spectrum of perturbations as a function of spatial frequency. Detailed analyses show that compression ratios of up to four times can be used most of the time without jeopardizing the practical validity of these simulations. This easy-to-read paper should be of value to scientific computing specialists and computer architects interested in achieving maximal performance on high-performance computing systems. Online Computing Reviews Service

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SC '13: Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis
          November 2013
          1123 pages
          ISBN:9781450323789
          DOI:10.1145/2503210
          • General Chair:
          • William Gropp,
          • Program Chair:
          • Satoshi Matsuoka

          Copyright © 2013 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 November 2013

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          SC '13 Paper Acceptance Rate91of449submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,516of6,373submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader