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

Neal Nuckolls

dblp:77/2508 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1996
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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
1 paper
Parallel and multicore computing · 39% Memory systems · 30% High-performance computing · 30%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
High-performance computing
cluster computing
0.011996
SoftFLASH: Analyzing the Performance of Clustered Distributed Virtual Shared Memory · ASPLOS 1996
Memory systems › shared memory
distributed shared memory
0.011996
SoftFLASH: Analyzing the Performance of Clustered Distributed Virtual Shared Memory · ASPLOS 1996
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel programming models
shared-memory parallelization
0.011996
SoftFLASH: Analyzing the Performance of Clustered Distributed Virtual Shared Memory · ASPLOS 1996
Parallel and multicore computing › multiprocessor system
large-scale multiprocessor
0.011996
SoftFLASH: Analyzing the Performance of Clustered Distributed Virtual Shared Memory · ASPLOS 1996

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

protocol processors · 0.0kernel implementation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1996 SoftFLASH: Analyzing the Performance of Clustered Distributed Virtual Shared Memory
abstract
One potentially attractive way to build large-scale shared-memory machines is to use small-scale to medium-scale shared-memory machines as clusters that are interconnected with an off-the-shelf network. To create a shared-memory programming environment across the clusters, it is possible to use a virtual shared-memory software layer. Because of the low latency and high bandwidth of the interconnect available within each cluster, there are clear advantages in making the clusters as large as possible. The critical question then becomes whether the latency and bandwidth of the top-level network and the software system are sufficient to support the communication demands generated by the clusters.To explore these questions, we have built an aggressive kernel implementation of a virtual shared-memory system using SGI multiprocessors and 100Mbyte/sec HIPPI interconnects. The system obtains speedups on 32 processors (four nodes, eight processors per node plus additional reserved protocol processors) that range from 6.9 on the communication-intensive FFT program to 21.6 on Ocean (both from the SPLASH 2 suite). In general, clustering is effective in reducing internode miss rates, but as the cluster size increases, increases in the remote latency, mostly due to increased TLB synchronization cost, offset the advantages. For communication-intensive applications, such as FFT, the overhead of sending out network requests, the limited network bandwidth, and the long network latency prevent the achievement of good performance. Overall, this approach still appears promising, but our results indicate that large low latency networks may be needed to make cluster-based virtual shared-memory machines broadly useful as large-scale shared-memory multiprocessors.
Andrew Erlichson, Neal Nuckolls, Greg Chesson, John L. Hennessy
ASPLOS2