, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 279–298 | Cite as

Communication-Aware Processor Allocation for Supercomputers: Finding Point Sets of Small Average Distance

  • Michael A. Bender
  • David P. Bunde
  • Erik D. Demaine
  • Sándor P. FeketeEmail author
  • Vitus J. Leung
  • Henk Meijer
  • Cynthia A. Phillips


We give processor-allocation algorithms for grid architectures, where the objective is to select processors from a set of available processors to minimize the average number of communication hops.

The associated clustering problem is as follows: Given n points in d , find a size-k subset with minimum average pairwise L 1 distance. We present a natural approximation algorithm and show that it is a \(\frac{7}{4}\) -approximation for two-dimensional grids; in d dimensions, the approximation guarantee is \(2-\frac{1}{2d}\) , which is tight. We also give a polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS) for constant dimension d, and we report on experimental results.


Processor allocation Supercomputers Communication cost Manhattan distance Clustering Approximation Polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahmadinia, A., Bobda, C., Fekete, S.P., Teich, J., van der Veen, J.: Optimal free-space management and routing-conscious dynamic placement for reconfigurable computing. IEEE Trans. Comput. 56(5), 673–680 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartal, Y., Charikar, M., Raz, D.: Approximating min-sum k-clustering in metric spaces. In: Proc. 33rd Symp. on Theory of Computation, pp. 11–20 (2001) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baylor, S., Benveniste, C., Hsu, Y.: Performance evaluation of a massively parallel I/O subsystem. In: Jain, R., Werth, J., Browne, J. (eds.) Input/Output in Parallel and Distributed Computer Systems. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 362, pp. 293–311. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1996). Chapter 13 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bender, C.M., Bender, M.A., Demaine, E., Fekete, S.: What is the optimal shape of a city?. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37, 147–159 (2004) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharya, S., Tsai, W.-T.: Lookahead processor allocation in mesh-connected massively parallel computers. In: Proc. 8th International Parallel Processing Symposium, pp. 868–875 (1994) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brightwell, R., Fisk, L.A., Greenberg, D.S., Hudson, T., Levenhagen, M., Maccabe, A.B., Riesen, R.: Massively parallel computing using commodity components. Parallel Comput. 26(2–3), 243–266 (2000) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, C., Mohapatra, P.: Improving performance of mesh connected multicomputers by reducing fragmentation. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 52(1), 40–68 (1998) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chuang, P.-J., Tzeng, N.-F.: An efficient submesh allocation strategy for mesh computer systems. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Dist. Comp. Systems, pp. 256–263 (1991) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feitelson, D.: The parallel workloads archive.
  10. 10.
    Fekete, S.P., Meijer, H.: Maximum dispersion and geometric maximum weight cliques. Algorithmica 38, 501–511 (2004) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guttmann-Beck, N., Hassin, R.: Approximation algorithms for minimum sum p-clustering. Discret. Appl. Math. 89, 125–142 (1998). hassin/ zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Indyk, P.: A sublinear time approximation scheme for clustering in metric spaces. In: Proc. 40th Ann. IEEE Symp. Found. Comp. Sci. (FOCS), pp. 154–159 (1999).
  13. 13.
    Karp, R.M., McKellar, A.C., Wong, C.K.: Near-optimal solutions to a 2-dimensional placement problem. SIAM J. Comput. 4, 271–286 (1975) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krueger, P., Lai, T.-H., Dixit-Radiya, V.: Job scheduling is more important than processor allocation for hypercube computers. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 5(5), 488–497 (1994) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krumke, S., Marathe, M., Noltemeier, H., Radhakrishnan, V., Ravi, S., Rosenkrantz, D.: Compact location problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 181, 379–404 (1997) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leung, V., Arkin, E., Bender, M., Bunde, D., Johnston, J., Lal, A., Mitchell, J., Phillips, C., Seiden, S.: Processor allocation on Cplant: achieving general processor locality using one-dimensional allocation strategies. In: Proc. 4th IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, pp. 296–304 (2002) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leung, V., Phillips, C., Bender, M., Bunde, D.: Algorithmic support for commodity-based parallel computing systems. Technical Report SAND2003-3702, Sandia National Laboratories (2003) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, K., Cheng, K.-H.: A two-dimensional buddy system for dynamic resource allocation in a partitionable mesh connected system. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 12, 79–83 (1991) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lo, V., Windisch, K., Liu, W., Nitzberg, B.: Non-contiguous processor allocation algorithms for mesh-connected multicomputers. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 8(7) (1997) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mache, J., Lo, V.: Dispersal metrics for non-contiguous processor allocation. Technical Report CIS-TR-96-13, University of Oregon (1996) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mache, J., Lo, V.: The effects of dispersal on message-passing contention in processor allocation strategies. In: Proc. Third Joint Conf. on Information Sciences. Sessions on Parallel and Distributed Processing, vol. 3, pp. 223–226 (1997) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mache, J., Lo, V., Windisch, K.: Minimizing message-passing contention in fragmentation-free processor allocation. In: Proc. 10th Intern. Conf. Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 120–124 (1997) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moore, S., Ni, L.: The effects of network contention on processor allocation strategies. In: Proc. 10th Int. Par. Proc. Symp., pp. 268–274 (1996) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sahni, S., Gonzalez, T.: p-complete approximation problems. J. ACM 23(3), 555–565 (1976) zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sandia National Laboratories: The Computational Plant Project.
  26. 26.
    Subramani, V., Kettimuthu, R., Srinivasan, S., Johnson, J., Sadayappan, P.: Selective buddy allocation for scheduling parallel jobs on clusters. In: Proc. 4th IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (2002) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    University of Oregon Resource Allocation Group: Procsimity.
  28. 28.
    Weisser, D., Nystrom, N., Vizino, C., Brown, S.T., Urbanic, J.: Optimizing job placement on the Cray XT3. In: CUG 2006 Proceedings (2006) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Windisch, K., Miller, J., Lo, V.: Procsimity: an experimental tool for processor allocation and scheduling in highly parallel systems. In: Proc. Fifth Symp. on the Frontiers of Massively Parallel Computation, pp. 414–421 (1995).
  30. 30.
    Zhu, Y.: Efficient processor allocation strategies for mesh-connected parallel computers. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 16, 328–337 (1992) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Bender
    • 1
  • David P. Bunde
    • 2
  • Erik D. Demaine
    • 3
  • Sándor P. Fekete
    • 4
    Email author
  • Vitus J. Leung
    • 5
  • Henk Meijer
    • 6
  • Cynthia A. Phillips
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceKnox CollegeGalesburgUSA
  3. 3.MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Dept. of Computer ScienceBraunschweig University of TechnologyBraunschweigGermany
  5. 5.Discrete Algorithms & Math. DepartmentSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA
  6. 6.Department of ScienceRoosevelt AcademyMiddelburg (ZL)The Netherlands

Personalised recommendations