Purpose-based benchmarks

International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 475-487

  Gustafson, J ^a  

^a SUN MICROSYSTEMS   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptability functions; Benchmarking; HPCS; Performance analysis; Productivity; Purpose based benchmarks; Scalability

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BENCHMARKING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; OPTIMIZATION; PERFORMANCE; PRODUCTIVITY;

ACCEPTABILITY FUNCTIONS; HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING SYSTEMS (HPCS); PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS; PURPOSE BASED BENCHMARKS; TRUSS OPTIMIZATION;

COMPUTER SYSTEMS;

EID: 9744287030     PISSN: 10943420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1094342004048540     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bailey, D. et al. 1994. The NAS Parallel Benchmarks. Technical Report RNR-94-007, NASA Ames Research Center, CA.
2. Dongarra, J. 2004. Performance of various computers using standard linear equations software in a Fortran environment. Technical Report CS-89-85, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (updated periodically).
3. Faulk, S., Gustafson, J, Johnson, P., Porter, A., Tichy, W., and Votta, L. 2004. Measuring HPC productivity. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 18(4).
4. Gustafson, J., Rover, D., Elbert, S., and Carter, M. 1990. The design of a scalable, fixed-time computer benchmark. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 12(4): 388-401.
5. Gustafson, J. 1994. A paradigm for grand challenge performance evaluation. Proceedings of the Toward Teraflop Computing and New Grand Challenge Applications Mardi Gras '94 Conference, Baton Rouge, LA
6. Gustafson, J. and Snell, Q. 1995. HINT: a new way to measure computer performance. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. II, 392-401.
7. Hansen, E. and Walster, G. W. 2004. Global Optimization using Interval Analysis, 2nd edition, Marcel Dekker, New York,
8. IBM. 1986. IBM RT PC Computer Technology, IBM Form No. SA23-1057, 81.
9. Kahan, W. 1997. The baleful effect of computer benchmarks upon applied mathematics, physics and chemistry. The John von Neumann Lecture at the 45th Annual Meeting of SIAM, Stanford University, CA.
10. Luce, R. and Raiffa, H. 1957. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey, Wiley, New York.
11. McCalpin, J. 2004. STREAM: sustainable memory bandwidth in high performance computers, http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/ (updated periodically).
12. Mullen, R. and Muhanna, R. 1999. Bounds of structural response for all possible loading combinations. Journal of Strucrural Engineering 125(1):98-106.
13. Pointer, L. 1990. PERFECT: Performance Evaluation for Cost-Effective Transformations. CSRD Report No. 964.
14. Smith, J. E. 1988. Characterizing performance with a single number. Communications of the ACM 31(10):1202-1206.
15. Snelling, D. 1993. A philosophical perspective on performance measurement. Computer Benchmarks, J. Dongarra and W. Gentzsch, editors, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 97-103.
16. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC). 2004. http://www.specbench.org/ (updated periodically).
17. Weingarten, F. 1993. HPCC research questioned. Communications of the ACM 36(11):27-29.