Improving online performance diagnosis by the use of historical performance data

ACM/IEEE SC 1999 Conference, SC 1999

Volumn , Issue , 1999, Pages 42-

  Karavanic, Karen L ^a   Miller, Barton P ^a  

^a University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURATE PERFORMANCE; DISTRIBUTED PROGRAM; HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE DATA; ON-LINE DIAGNOSIS; ON-LINE PERFORMANCE; PARALLEL PERFORMANCE TOOLS; PERFORMANCE DIAGNOSIS; TIME-CONSUMING TASKS;

PROGRAM DIAGNOSTICS;

EID: 57349089997     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/SC.1999.10029     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. W. Williams, T. Hoel, and D. Pase. The MPP Apprentice performance tool: Delivering the performance of the Cray T3D. In K.M. Decker and R.M. Rehmann, editors, Programming Environments for Massively Parallel Distributed Systems, Birkhäuser, 1994.
2. J. K. Hollingsworth and B. P. Miller. Dynamic control of performance monitoring on large scale parallel systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Supercomputing, Tokyo, July 1993.
3. B. R. Helm, A. D. Malony, and S. F. Fickas. Capturing and automating performance diagnosis: the Poirot approach. In Proceedings, 1995 International Parallel Processing Symposium, pages 606-613, April 1995.
4. A. B. Sinha and L. V. Kale. Towards automatic performance analysis. In Proceedings, 1996 International Conference on Parallel Processing, pages III-53-60, 1996.
5. B. P. Miller, M. D. Callaghan, J. M. Cargille, J. K. Hollingsworth, R. B. Irvin, K. L. Karavanic, K. Kunchithapadam, and T. Newhall. The Paradyn parallel performance measurement tool. IEEE Computer, 28(11):37-46, November 1995.
6. W. Gropp, E. Lusk, and A. Skjellum. Using MPI: Portable Parallel Programming with the Message-Passing Interface, chapter 4. The MIT Press, 1994.
7. A. Mathur and M. Abrams. Toward a machine assisted software performance diagnosis methodology. Technical Report TR 93-12, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Computer Science, 1993.
8. S. E. Perl, W. E. Weihl, and B. Noble. Continuous monitoring and performance specification. Technical Report 153, Compaq Digital Systems Research Cen-ter, June 1998.
9. J. M. Francioni. Determining the effectiveness of interfaces for debugging and performance analysis tools. In M. L. Simmons, A. H. Hayes, J. S. Brown, and D. A. Reed, editors, Debugging and Performance Tuning for Parallel Computing Systems, pages 127-141. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996.
10. A. D. Malony. Performance Observability. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1990.
11. A. Hondroudakis and R. Procter. An empirically derived framework for classifying parallel program performance tuning problems. In Proceedings of the SIGMETRICS Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Tools, pages 112-121. ACM Press, August 1998.
12. W. Smith, I. Foster, and V. Taylor. Predicting application run times using historical information. In Proceedings of the IPPS/SPDP'98 Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, March 1998.
13. K. L. Karavanic and B. P. Miller. Experiment Management Support for Performance Tuning. In SC97, San Jose, CA, November 1997.
14. The APART Working Group on Automatic Performance Analysis: Resources and Tools, http://www.fzjuelich. de/apart/.