skip to main content
10.1145/3095770.3095776acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

UNITY: Unified Memory and File Space

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the vision for UNITY, a new high-performance computing focused data storage abstraction that places the entire memory hierarchy, including both traditionally separated memory-and file-based data storage, into one storage continuum. Through the use of a novel API and a set of services centered around a smart runtime system, UNITY is able to provide a number of valuable and interesting benefits. The unified storage space provides a scalable and resilient data environment that dynamically manages the mapping of data onto available resources based on multiple factors, including desired persistence and energy budget considerations. By eliminating the need for high-performance computing domain scientists to develop architecture-dependent optimizations for rapidly evolving data storage technologies, UNITY addresses both ease-of-use and performance.

References

  1. 2016. The UNITY Project - Merged Memory and Storage I/O. http://www.unity-ssio.org. (2016). Accessed: 2017-03-05.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2017. ASCR Co-Design Centers. https://science.energy.gov/ascr/research/scidac/co-design/. (2017). Accessed: 2017-03-05.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hasan Abbasi, Jay Lofstead, Fang Zheng, Karsten Schwan, Matthew Wolf, and Scott Klasky. 2009. Extending i/o through high performance data services. In Cluster Computing and Workshops, 2009. CLUSTER'09. IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Hakan Akkan, Latchesar Ionkov, and Michael Lang. 2013. Transparently consistent asynchronous shared memory. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Runtime and Operating Systems for Supercomputers. ACM, 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Atchley, D. Dillow, G. Shipman, P. Geoffray, J. M. Squyres, G. Bosilca, and R. Minnich. 2011. The Common Communication Interface (CCI). In 2011 IEEE 19th Annual Symposium on High Performance Interconnects. 51--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Michael Bauer, Sean Treichler, Elliott Slaughter, and Alex Aiken. 2012. Legion: Expressing Locality and Independence with Logical Regions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC '12). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, Article 66, 11 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2388996.2389086 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. Wes Bethel and Martin Greenwald (eds.). 2016. Report of the DOE Workshop on Management, Analysis, and Visualization of Experimental and Observational Data: The Convergence of Data and Computing. Technical Report LBNL-1005155. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, 94720. Also available as https://science.energy.gov/~/media/ascr/pdf/programdocuments/docs/ascr-eod-workshop-2015-report_160524.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. David John Bonnie and Kyle E. Lamb. 2016. MarFS: A Scalable Near-POSIX Name Space over Cloud Objects âĂŞ New Features.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ron Brightwell, Ron Oldfield, Arthur B Maccabe, and David E Bernholdt. 2013. Hobbes: Composition and virtualization as the foundations of an extreme-scale OS/R. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Runtime and Operating Systems for Supercomputers. ACM, 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Joel Coburn, Adrian M. Caulfield, Ameen Akel, Laura M. Grupp, Rajesh K. Gupta, Ranjit Jhala, and Steven Swanson. 2011. NV-Heaps: Making Persistent Objects Fast and Safe with Next-generation, Non-volatile Memories. SIGPLAN Not. 46, 3 (March 2011), 105--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Subramanya R. Dulloor, Sanjay Kumar, Anil Keshavamurthy, Philip Lantz, Dheeraj Reddy, Rajesh Sankaran, and Jeff Jackson. 2014. System Software for Persistent Memory. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 15, 15 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Subramanya R. Dulloor, Amitabha Roy, and others. 2016. Data Tiering in Heterogeneous Memory Systems. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 15, 16 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Fernando, S. Kannan, A. Gavrilovska, and K. Schwan. 2016. Phoenix: Memory Speed HPC I/O with NVM. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on High Performance Computing, Data, and Anlytics (HiPC). Hyderabad, India.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mike Folk, Gerd Heber, Quincey Koziol, Elena Pourmal, and Dana Robinson. 2011. An overview of the HDF5 technology suite and its applications. In Proceedings of the EDBT/ICDT 2011 Workshop on Array Databases. ACM, 36--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Larry Freeman. 2012. What's Old Is New Again - Storage Tiering. http://www.snia.org/sites/default/education/tutorials/2012/spring/storman/LarryFreeman_What_Old_Is_New_Again.pdf. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. William Gropp, Ewing Lusk, and Rajeev Thakur. 1999. Using MPI-2: Advanced features of the message-passing interface. MIT press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Latchesar Ionkov and Michael Lang. 2015. Hop: Elastic Consistency for Exascale Data Stores. In Inter. Conf. on High Performance Computing. Springer, 291--306.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Latchesar Ionkov, Michael Lang, and Carlos Maltzahn. 2013. Drepl: optimizing access to application data for analysis and visualization. In Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST), 2013 IEEE 29th Symposium on. IEEE, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Latchesar Ionkov and Ginger Young. 2014. Asymmetric Memory Extension for Openshmem. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Partitioned Global Address Space Programming Models (PGAS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 2 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sudarsun K., A. Gavrilovska, and K. Schwan. 2016. pVM: Persistent Virtual Memory for Efficient Capacity Scaling and Object Storage. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 16 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sudarsun Kannan, Ada Gavrilovska, Karsten Schwan, and Dejan Milojicic. 2013. Optimizing Checkpoints Using NVM as Virtual Memory. In 27th IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Sudarsun Kannan, Moinuddin Qureshi, Ada Gavrilovska, and Karsten Schwan. 2016. Energy Aware Persistence: Reducing Energy Overheads of Memory-based Persistence in NVMs. In 25th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT'16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ning Liu, Jason Cope, Philip Carns, Christopher Carothers, Robert Ross, Gary Grider, Adam Crume, and Carlos Maltzahn. 2012. On the role of burst buffers in leadership-class storage systems. In Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST), 2012 IEEE 28th Symposium on. IEEE, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jay Lofstead, Ivo Jimenez, Carlos Maltzahn, Quincey Koziol, John Bent, and Eric Barton. 2016. DAOS and friends: a proposal for an exascale storage system. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. IEEE Press, 50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jay F Lofstead, Scott Klasky, Karsten Schwan, Norbert Podhorszki, and Chen Jin. 2008. Flexible io and integration for scientific codes through the adaptable io system (adios). In Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Challenges of large applications in distributed environments. ACM, 15--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Arifa Nisar, Wei-keng Liao, and Alok Choudhary. 2008. Scaling parallel I/O performance through I/O delegate and caching system. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing. IEEE Press, 9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. D. Otstott, N. Evans, L. Ionkov, M. Zhao, and M. Lang. 2014. Enabling composite applications through an asynchronous shared memory interface. In Big Data (Big Data), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 219--224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Antonio J. PeÃśa and Pavan Balaji. 2014. Toward the efficient use of multiple explicitly managed memory subsystems. In Proc. IEEE International International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER'14). 123--131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. David Rogers, Kenneth D Moreland, Ron A Oldfield, and Nathan D Fabian. 2013. Data co-processing for extreme scale analysis level II ASC milestone (4745). Technical Report. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. R. Ross, R. Thakur, and others. 2000. PVFS: A parallel file system for Linux clusters. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Linux Showcase and Conf. 391--430. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. P. C. Roth, D. C. Arnold, and B. P. Miller. 2003. MRNet: A Software-Based Multicast/Reduction Network for Scalable Tools. In Supercomputing, 2003 ACM/IEEE Conference. 21--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Philip Schwan. 2003. Lustre: Building a file system for 1000-node clusters. In 2003 Linux Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Du Shen, Xu Liu, and Felix Xiaozhu Lin. 2016. Characterizing Emerging Heterogeneous Memory. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Memory Management (ISMM 2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Sean Treichler, Michael Bauer, and Alex Aiken. 2013. Language Support for Dynamic, Hierarchical Data Partitioning. SIGPLAN Not. 48, 10 (Oct. 2013), 495--514. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Haris Volos, Andres Jaan Tack, and Michael M. Swift. 2011. Mnemosyne: Lightweight Persistent Memory. SIGPLAN Not. 47, 4 (March 2011), 91--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Wm A Wulf and Sally A McKee. 1995. Hitting the memory wall: implications of the obvious. ACM SIGARCH computer architecture news 23, 1 (1995), 20--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. F. Zheng, H. Abbasi, C. Docan, J. Lofstead, Q. Liu, S. Klasky, M. Parashar, N. Podhorszki, K. Schwan, and M. Wolf. 2010. PreDatA--preparatory data analytics on peta-scale machines. In Parallel & Distributed Processing (IPDPS), 2010 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. UNITY: Unified Memory and File Space

        Recommendations

        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 Other conferences
          ROSS '17: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Runtime and Operating Systems for Supercomputers ROSS 2017
          June 2017
          62 pages
          ISBN:9781450350860
          DOI:10.1145/3095770

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of the United States government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 27 June 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate58of169submissions,34%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader