Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Isaac Boixaderas

dblp:284/5119 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-7738-524XORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 3 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers
Performance modeling and evaluation · 65% Hardware reliability and fault tolerance · 20% Distributed systems · 7%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Performance modeling and evaluation › profiling
application profiling
0.812024
A Mess of Memory System Benchmarking, Simulation and Application Profiling · MICRO 2024
Performance modeling and evaluation › benchmarking › computer architecture benchmarking
memory system benchmarking
0.812024
A Mess of Memory System Benchmarking, Simulation and Application Profiling · MICRO 2024
Performance modeling and evaluation › simulation › architectural simulation
memory system simulation
0.812024
A Mess of Memory System Benchmarking, Simulation and Application Profiling · MICRO 2024
Performance modeling and evaluation
simulation
0.812024
A Mess of Memory System Benchmarking, Simulation and Application Profiling · MICRO 2024
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization
0.812024
A Mess of Memory System Benchmarking, Simulation and Application Profiling · MICRO 2024
Distributed systems
fault tolerance
0.412020
Cost-aware prediction of uncorrected DRAM errors in the field · SC 2020
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance
soft errors
0.412020
Cost-aware prediction of uncorrected DRAM errors in the field · SC 2020
High-performance computing › system resilience
supercomputer reliability
0.212024
Reinforcement Learning-based Adaptive Mitigation of Uncorrected DRAM Errors in the Field · HPDC 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

cost-benefit analysis · 1.2reinforcement learning · 0.8classical machine learning metrics · 0.8bandwidth-latency curve measurement · 0.8random forest · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Reinforcement Learning-based Adaptive Mitigation of Uncorrected DRAM Errors in the Field
abstract
Scaling to larger systems, with current levels of reliability, requires cost-effective methods to mitigate hardware failures. One of the main causes of hardware failure is an uncorrected error in memory, which terminates the current job and wastes all computation since the last checkpoint. This paper presents the first adaptive method for triggering uncorrected error mitigation. It uses a prediction approach that considers the likelihood of an uncorrected error and its current potential cost. The method is based on reinforcement learning, and the only user-defined parameters are the mitigation cost and whether the job can be restarted from a mitigation point. We evaluate our method using classical machine learning metrics together with a cost-benefit analysis, which compares the cost of mitigation actions with the benefits from mitigating some of the errors. On two years of production logs from the MareNostrum supercomputer, our method reduces lost compute time by 54% compared with no mitigation and is just 6% below the optimal Oracle method. All source code is open source.
Isaac Boixaderas, Sergi Moré, Javier Bartolome, David Vicente, Petar Radojkovic, Paul M. Carpenter, Eduard Ayguadé
HPDC1
2024 A Mess of Memory System Benchmarking, Simulation and Application Profiling
abstract
The Memory stress (Mess) framework provides a unified view of the memory system benchmarking, simulation and application profiling. The Mess benchmark provides a holistic and detailed memory system characterization. It is based on hundreds of measurements that are represented as a family of bandwidth-latency curves. The benchmark increases the coverage of all the previous tools and leads to new findings in the behavior of the actual and simulated memory systems. We deploy the Mess benchmark to characterize Intel, AMD, IBM, Fujitsu, Amazon and NVIDIA servers with DDR4, DDR5, HBM2 and HBM2E memory. The Mess memory simulator uses bandwidth-latency concept for the memory performance simulation. We integrate Mess with widely-used CPUs simulators enabling modeling of all high-end memory technologies. The Mess simulator is fast, easy to integrate and it closely matches the actual system performance. By design, it enables a quick adoption of new memory technologies in hardware simulators. Finally, the Mess application profiling positions the application in the bandwidth-latency space of the target memory system. This information can be correlated with other application runtime activities and the source code, leading to a better overall understanding of the application's behavior. The current Mess benchmark release covers all major CPU and GPU ISAs, x86, ARM, Power, RISC-V, and NVIDIA's PTX. We also release as open source the ZSim, gem5 and OpenPiton Metro-MPI integrated with the Mess simulator for DDR4, DDR5, Optane, HBM2, HBM2E and CXL memory expanders. The Mess application profiling is already integrated into a suite of production HPC performance analysis tools.
Pouya Esmaili-Dokht, Francesco Sgherzi, Valéria Soldera Girelli, Isaac Boixaderas, Mariana Carmin, Alireza Monemi, Adrià Armejach, Estanislao Mercadal, Germán Llort, Petar Radojkovic, Miquel Moretó, Judit Giménez, Xavier Martorell, Eduard Ayguadé, Jesús Labarta, Emanuele Confalonieri, Rishabh Dubey, Jason Adlard
MICRO4
2024 DRAM Errors and Cosmic Rays: Space Invaders or Science Fiction?
abstract
It is widely accepted that cosmic rays are a plausible cause of DRAM errors in high-performance computing (HPC) systems, and various studies suggest that they could explain some aspects of the observed DRAM error behavior. However, this phenomenon is insufficiently studied in production environments. We analyze the correlations between cosmic rays and DRAM errors on two HPC clusters: a production supercomputer with server-class DDR3-1600 and a prototype with LPDDR3-1600 and no hardware error correction. Our error logs cover 2000 billion MB-hours for the MareNostrum 3 supercomputer and 135 million MB-hours for the Mont-Blanc prototype. Our analysis combines quantitative analysis, formal statistical methods and machine learning. We detect no indications that cosmic rays have any influence on the DRAM errors. To understand whether the findings are specific to systems under study, located at 100 meters above the sea level, the analysis should be repeated on other HPC clusters, especially the ones located on higher altitudes. Also, analysis can (and should) be applied to revisit and extend numerous previous studies which use cosmic rays as a hypothetical explanation for some aspects of the observed DRAM error behaviors.
Isaac Boixaderas, Jorge Amaya, Sergi Moré, Javier Bartolome, David Vicente, Osman S. Unsal, Dimitris Gizopoulos, Paul M. Carpenter, Petar Radojkovic, Eduard Ayguadé
SBAC-PAD1
2020 Cost-aware prediction of uncorrected DRAM errors in the field
abstract
This paper presents and evaluates a method to predict DRAM uncorrected errors, a leading cause of hardware failures in large-scale HPC clusters. The method uses a random forest classifier, which was trained and evaluated using error logs from two years of production of the MareNostrum 3 supercomputer. By enabling the system to take measures to mitigate node failures, our method reduces lost compute time by up to 57%, a net saving of 21,000 node-hours per year. We release all source code as open source. We also discuss and clarify aspects of methodology that are essential for a DRAM prediction method to be useful in practice. We explain why standard evaluation metrics, such as precision and recall, are insufficient, and base the evaluation on a cost-benefit analysis. This methodology can help ensure that any DRAM error predictor is clear from training bias and has a clear cost-benefit calculation.
Isaac Boixaderas, Darko Zivanovic, Sergi Moré, Javier Bartolome, David Vicente, Marc Casas, Paul M. Carpenter, Petar Radojkovic, Eduard Ayguadé
SC1