Active and accelerated learning of cost models for optimizing scientific applications

VLDB 2006 - Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 535-546

  Shivam, Piyush ^a   Babu, Shivnath ^a   Chase, Jeff ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSTS; MATLAB; MODELING LANGUAGES; SAMPLING;

COMPUTATIONAL GRIDS; COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE; COST MODELS; LARGE-SCALES; LEARN+; SCIENCE APPLICATIONS; SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS; STATISTICAL LEARNING TECHNIQUES; TRAINING SAMPLE; WORKFLOW DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 70849134809     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. A. Allen. Probability, Statistics, and Queuing Theory with Computer Science Applications. Academic Press, 1990.
2. I. Altintas, C. Berkley, E. Jaeger, M. Jones, B. Ludascher, and S. Mock. Kepler: An Extensible System for Design and Execution of Scientific Workflows. In Proc. of SSDBM, Jun 2004.
3. S. Altschul, T. Madden, A. Schaffer, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Miller, and D. Lipman. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A New Generation of Protein Database Search Programs. Nucleic Acids Research, 25:3389-3402, 1997.
4. Grid Physics Network in Atlas. www.usatlas.bnl.gov/comput ing/grid/griphyn.
5. J. Bent, D. Thain, A. C. Arpaci-Dusseau, R. H. Arpaci-Dusseau, and M. Livny. Explicit Control in a Batch-Aware Distributed File System. In Proc. of the USENIX Symp. on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Mar 2004.
6. Biomedical Informatics Research Network. www.nbirn.net.
7. L. Carrington, M. Laurenzano, A. Snavely, R. Campbell, and L. Davis. How Well Can Simple Metrics Represent the Performance of HPC Applications? In Proc. of the ACM/IEEE Conf. on Supercomputing, Nov 2005.
8. Condor High Throughput Computing. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor.
9. H. J. Curnow and B. A. Wichmann. A Synthetic Benchmark. The Computer Journal, 19(1):43-49, Feb 1976.
10. B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, I. Pratt, A. Warfield, P. Barham, and R. Neugebauer. Xen and the Art of Virtualization. In Proc. of the ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, Oct 2003.
11. D. Ellard and M. Seltzer. New NFS Tracing Tools and Techniques for System Analysis. In Proc. of the Annual Large Installation System Administration Conf., Oct 2003.
12. V, Fedorov. Theory of Optimal Experiments. Academic Press, 1972.
13. I. Foster and C. Kesselman. The Grid2: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure. Morgan Kaufmann, 2004.
14. Cyberstructure for the Geosciences. www.geongrid.org.
15. J. Gray, D. Liu, M. Nieto-Santisteban, A. Szalay, G. Heber, and D. DeWitt. Scientific Data Management in the Coming Decade. Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-10, Microsoft Research, Jan 2005.
16. Grid Physics Network, www.griphyn.org.
17. L. Haas, M. Carey, M. Livny, and A. Shukla. Seeking the Truth About Ad Hoc Join Costs. VLDB Journal, 3(6):241-256, 1997.
18. Z. He, B. Lee, and R. Snapp. Self-Tuning UDF Cost Modeling Using the Memory-Limited Quadtree. In Proc. of EDBT, Mar 2004.
19. S. A. Huettel, A. W. Song, and G. McCarthy. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2004.
20. Y. Ioannidis, M. Livny, A. Ailamaki, A. Narayanan, and A. Therber. Zoo: A Desktop Experiment Management Environment. In Proc. of SIGMOD, Jun 1997.
21. R. Jain. The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis: Techniques for Experimental Design, Measurement, Simulation, and Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, May 1991.
22. W. Jin, J. S. Chase, and J. Kaur. Interposed Proportional Sharing for a Storage Service Utility. In Proc. of the Joint Intl. Conf. on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, Jun 2004.
23. D. Liu and M. Franklin. The Design of Griddb: A Data-Centric Overlay for the Scientific Grid. In Proc. of VLDB, Sep 2004.
24. L. McVoy and C. Staelin. lmbench: Portable Tools for Performance Analysis. In Proc. of the USENIX Annual Technical Conf, Jan 1996.
25. B. K. Pasquale and G. C. Polyzos. A Static Analysis of I/O Characteristics of Scientific Applications in a Production Workload. In Proc. of ACM/IEEE Conf. on Supercomputing, Nov 1993.
26. J. C. Phillips, R. Braun, et al Scalable Molecular Dynamics with NAMD. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 26:1781-1802, 2005.
27. J. Pormann, J. Board, D. Rose, and C. Henriquez. Large-Scale Modeling of Cardiac Electrophysiology. In Proc. of Computers in Cardiology, Sep 2002.
28. Netperf: A Network Performance Benchmark. www.cup.hp.com/netperf/ NetperfPage.html.
29. Performance Monitoring Tools for Linux. perso.wanadoo.fr/sebastien. godard.
30. Sloan Digital Sky Survey, www.sdss.org.
31. S. Shankar, A. Kini, D. DeWitt, and J. Naughton. Integrating Databases and Workflow Systems. SIGMOD Record, 3(34):5-11, 2005.
32. P. Shivam, S. Babu, and J. Chase. Learning Application Models for Utility Resource Planning. In Intl. Conf. on Autonomic Computing, Jun 2006.
33. S. Vazhkudai and J. M. Schopf. Using Regression Techniques to Predict Large Data Transfers. Intl. Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, cs.DC/0304037, 2003.
34. J. J. Yi, D. J. Lilja, and D. M. Hawkins. A Statistically Rigorous Approach for Improving Simulation Methodology. In Proc. of Intl. Symp. on High Performance Computer Architecture, Feb 2003.
35. N. Zhang, P. Hass, V. Josifovski, G. Lohman, and C. Zhang. Statistical Learning Techniques for Costing XML Queries. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on VLDB, Aug-Sep 2005.
36. Q. Zhu and P. Larson. Building Regression Cost Models for Multidatabase Systems. In Proc. of PDIS, 1996.