How do you assess the level of difficulty writing own process manager based on the sources of hydra (mpich)? ie., for scale 1 to 100? It will be change the part corresponding to the assignment of processes to computers.
This shouldn't be too hard, but Hydra already implements several rank allocation strategies, so you might not even need to write any code.
You can already provide a user-specified rank allocation. Based on the provided configuration, Hydra can use the hwloc library to obtain hardware topology information and bind processes to cores.
Related
I have a question that I'm curious about, but can't find the answer to exactly. Suppose we have a datawriter and a datareader and as a topic, we have an airplane's flight runtime information such as coordinates, etc. And suppose that datareader should take a heavy process from this information. When there is more than 100 flight at the same time, parallel operation of multiple datareaders seems to be a suitable solution. But I think multiplexing Datareaders won't make sense since because they will all process the same message (topic) in parallel in the same way. Alternative solution. To make the DataReader multithread. But this time there will be only one datareader. And we will have a constraint.
What kind of approach can be created in dds to create multiple datareaders and process them in parallel to distribute the workload.
OpenSpliceDDS implements an extension to the DDS specification to do exactly this i.e. using its DDS_ShareQoSPolicy on a subscriber/reader that allows sharing of entities by multiple processes or threads. When that policy is enabled, OpenSplice will try to lookup an existing entity that matches the name supplied in that ShareQoSPolicy. A new entity will only be created if a shared entity registered under the specified name doesn't exist yet.
Shared Readers can be useful for implementing algorithms like the worker pattern,
where a single shared reader can contain samples representing different tasks that
may be processed in parallel by separate processes. In this algorithm each process
consumes the (samples related to the) task it is going to perform (i.e. it takes the samples representing that task) thus preventing other processes from consuming and therefore performing the same task.
NOTE: Entities can only be shared between co-located processes where OpenSplice is running in federated mode where shared memory is exploited to share the data between the readers of the set of federated processes (so this doesn't work over machine-boundaries).
I am right now trying to model a warehouse with import and export processes. I have the problem that I do not know how I should model the capacity of different storage places in the warehouse. There are processes where vehicles with different loadings come and all of them need to be stored in the warehouse with a limited capacity. Else the arriving goods have to be declined.
I am modeling this process in a BPM Suite and was thinking about using Python to access this problem. I thought that I could simply use variables and if clauses to check the capacity of each storage. But if I would simulate this process with this approach then the variables are re-instantiated each time with the start value and do not hold the actual value., beucause with the script is included in the model as a script task.
Does anyone has other ideas to model capacity in BPMN?
Have you considered to not use BPMN as it is clearly adds more complexity than benefit in your case? Look at the Cadence Workflow which allows to specify orchestration logic using normal code and would support your requirements directly without any ugly workarounds.
I am trying to construct a small application that will run on a robot with very limited sensory capabilities (NXT with gyroscope/ultrasonic/touch) and the actual AI implementation will be based on hierarchical perceptual control theory. I'm just looking for some guidance regarding the implementation as I'm confused when it comes to moving from theory to implementation.
The scenario
My candidate scenario will have 2 behaviors, one is to avoid obstacles, second is to drive in circular motion based on given diameter.
The problem
I've read several papers but could not determine how I should classify my virtual machines (layers of behavior?) and how they should communicating to lower levels and solving internal conflicts.
These are the list of papers I've went through to find my answers but sadly could not
pct book
paper on multi-legged robot using hpct
pct alternative perspective
and the following ideas are the results of my brainstorming:
The avoidance layer would be part of my 'sensation layer' and that is because it only identifies certain values like close objects e.g. ultrasonic sensor specific range of values. The other second layer would be part of the 'configuration layer' as it would try to detect the pattern in which the robot is driving like straight line, random, circle, or even not moving at all, this is using the gyroscope and motor readings. 'Intensity layer' represents all sensor values so it's not something to consider as part of the design.
Second idea is to have both of the layers as 'configuration' because they would be responding to direct sensor values from 'intensity layer' and they would be represented in a mesh-like design where each layer can send it's reference values to the lower layer that interface with actuators.
My problem here is how conflicting behavior would be handled (maneuvering around objects and keep running in circles)? should be similar to Subsumption where certain layers get suppressed/inhibited and have some sort of priority system? forgive my short explanation as I did not want to make this a lengthy question.
/Y
Here is an example of a robot which implements HPCT and addresses some of the issues relevant to your project, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtYu53dKz2Q.
It is interesting to see a comparison of these two paradigms, as they both approach the field of AI at a similar level, that of embodied agents exhibiting simple behaviors. However, there are some fundamental differences between the two which means that any comparison will be biased towards one or the other depending upon the criteria chosen.
The main difference is of biological plausibility. Subsumption architecture, although inspired by some aspects of biological systems, is not intended to theoretically represent such systems. PCT, on the hand, is exactly that; a theory of how living systems work.
As far as PCT is concerned then, the most important criterion is whether or not the paradigm is biologically plausible, and criteria such as accuracy and complexity are irrelevant.
The other main difference is that Subsumption concerns action selection whereas PCT concerns control of perceptions (control of output versus control of input), which makes any comparison on other criteria problematic.
I had a few specific comments about your dissertation on points that may need
clarification or may be typos.
"creatures will attempt to reach their ultimate goals through
alternating their behaviour" - do you mean altering?
"Each virtual machine's output or error signal is the reference signal of the machine below it" - A reference signal can be a function of one or more output signals from higher-level systems, so more strictly this would be, "Each virtual machine's output or error signal contributes to the reference signal of a machine at a lower level".
"The major difference here is that Subsumption does not incorporate the ideas of 'conflict' " - Well, it does as the purpose of prioritising the different layers, and sub-systems, is to avoid conflict. Conflict is implicit, as there is not a dedicated system to handle conflicts.
"'reorganization' which require considering the goals of other layers." This doesn't quite capture the meaning of reorganisation. Reorganisation happens when there is prolonged error in perceptual control systems, and is a process whereby the structure of the systems changes. So rather than just the reference signals changing the connections between systems or the gain of the systems will change.
"Design complexity: this is an essential property for both theories." Rather than an essential property, in the sense of being required, it is a characteristic, though it is an important property to consider with respect to the implementation or usability of a theory. Complexity, though, has no bearing on the validity of the theory. I would say that PCT is a very simple theory, though complexity arises in defining the transfer functions, but this applies to any theory of living systems.
"The following step was used to create avoidance behaviour:" Having multiple nodes for different speeds seem unnecessarily complex. With PCT it should only be necessary to have one such node, where the distance is controlled by varying the speed (which could be negative).
Section 4.2.1 "For example, the avoidance VM tries to respond directly to certain intensity values with specific error values." This doesn't sound like PCT at all. With PCT, systems never respond with specific error (or output) values, but change the output in order to bring the intensity (in this case) input in to line with the reference.
"Therefore, reorganisation is required to handle that conflicting behaviour. I". If there is conflict reorganisation may be necessary if the current systems are not able to resolve that conflict. However, the result of reorganisation may be a set of systems that are able to resolve conflict. So, it can be possible to design systems that resolve conflict but do not require reorganisation. That is usually done with a higher-level control system, or set of systems; and should be possible in this case.
In this section there is no description of what the controlled variables are, which is of concern. I would suggest being clear about what are goal (variables) of each of the systems.
"Therefore, the designed behaviour is based on controlling reference values." If it is only reference values that are altered then I don't think it is accurate to describe this as 'reorganisation'. Such a node would better be described as a "conflict resolution" node, which should be a higher-level control system.
Figure 4.1. The links annotated as "error signals" are actually output signals. The error signals are the links between the comparator and the output.
"the robot never managed to recover from that state of trying to reorganise the reference values back and forth." I'd suggest the way to resolve this would be to have a system at a level above the conflicted systems, and takes inputs from one or both of them. The variable that it controls could simply be something like, 'circular-motion-while-in-open-space', and the input a function of the avoidance system perception and then a function of the output used as the reference for the circular motion system, which may result in a low, or zero, reference value, essentially switching off the system, thus avoiding conflict, or interference. Remember that a reference signal may be a weighted function of a number of output signals. Those weights, or signals, could be negative so inhibiting the effect of a signal resulting in suppression in a similar way to the Subsumption architecture.
"In reality, HPCT cannot be implemented without the concept of reorganisation because conflict will occur regardless". As described above HPCT can be implemented without reorganisation.
"Looking back at the accuracy of this design, it is difficult to say that it can adapt." Provided the PCT system is designed with clear controlled variables in mind PCT is highly adaptive, or resistant to the effects of disturbances, which is the PCT way of describing adaption in the present context.
In general, it may just require clarification in the text, but as there is a lack of description of controlled variables in the model of the PCT implementation and that, it seems, some 'behavioural' modules used were common to both implementations it makes me wonder whether PCT feedback systems were actually used or whether it was just the concept of the hierarchical architecture that was being contrasted with that of the Subsumption paradigm.
I am happy to provide more detail of HPCT implementation though it looks like this response is somewhat overdue and you've gone beyond that stage.
Partial answer from RM of the CSGnet list:
https://listserv.illinois.edu/wa.cgi?A2=ind1312d&L=csgnet&T=0&P=1261
Forget about the levels. They are just suggestions and are of no use in building a working robot.
A far better reference for the kind of robot you want to develop is the CROWD program, which is documented at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/demos/tutor_pct.html.
The agents in the CROWD program do most of what you want your robot to do. So one way to approach the design is to try to implement the control systems in the CROWD programs using the sensors and outputs available for the NXT robot.
Approach the design of the robot by thinking about what perceptions should be controlled in order to produce the behavior you want to see the robot perform. So, for example, if one behavior you want to see is "avoidance" then think about what avoidance behavior is (I presume it is maintaining a goal distance from obstacles) and then think about what perception, if kept under control, would result in you seeing the robot maintain a fixed distance from objects. I suspect it would be the perception of the time delay between sending and receiving of the ultrasound pulses.Since the robot is moving in two-space (I presume) there might have to be two pulse sensors in order to sense the two D location of objects.
There are potential conflicts between the control systems that you will need to build; for example, I think there could be conflicts between the system controlling for moving in a circular path and the system controlling for avoiding obstacles. The agents in the CROWD program have the same problem and sometimes get into dead end conflicts. There are various ways to deal with conflicts of this kind;for example, you could have a higher level system monitoring the error in the two potentially conflicting systems and have it make reduce the the gain in one system or the other if the conflict (error) persists for some time.
I want to share large in memory static data(RAM lucene index) for my map tasks in Hadoop? Is there way for several map/reduce tasks to share same JVM?
Jobs can enable task JVMs to be reused by specifying the job configuration mapred.job.reuse.jvm.num.tasks. If the value is 1 (the default), then JVMs are not reused (i.e. 1 task per JVM). If it is -1, there is no limit to the number of tasks a JVM can run (of the same job). One can also specify some value greater than 1 using the api.
In $HADOOP_HOME/conf/mapred-site.xml add the follow property
<property>
<name>mapred.job.reuse.jvm.num.tasks</name>
<value>#</value>
</property>
The # can be set to a number to specify how many times the JVM is to be reused (default is 1), or set to -1 for no limit on the reuse amount.
Shameless plug
I go over using static objects with JVM reuse to accomplish what you describe here:
http://chasebradford.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/distributed-cache-static-objects-and-fast-setup/
Another option, although more complicated, is to use distributed cache with a read-only memory mapped file. That way you can share the resource across the JVM processes as well.
To my best knowledge, there is no easy way for multiple map tasks (Hadoop) to share static data structures.
This is actually a known problem for current Map Reduce model. The reason that current implementation doesn't share static datas across map tasks is because Hadoop is designed to be highly reliable. As a result, if a task fails, it will only crash its own JVM. It will not impact the execution of other JVMs.
I am currently working on a prototype that can distribute the work of a single JVM across multiple cores (essentially you just need one JVM to utilize multi cores). This way, you can reduce the duplication of in memory data structures without costing CPU utilization. The next step for me is to develop a version of Hadoop that can run multiple Map tasks within one JVM, which is exactly what you are asking for.
There is an interesting post here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2123
At work we perform demanding numerical computations.
We have a network of several Linux boxes with different processing capabilities. At any given time, there can be anywhere from zero to dozens of people connected to a given box.
I created a script to measure the MFLOPS (Million of Floating Point Operations per Second) using the Linpack Benchmark; it also provides number of cores and memory.
I would like to use this information together with the load average (obtained using the uptime command) to suggest the best computer for performing a demanding computation. In other words, its 3:00pm; I have a meeting in two hours; I need to run a demanding process: what node will get me the answer fastest?
I envision a script which will output a suggestion along the lines of:
SUGGESTED HOSTS (IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE)
HOST1.MYNETWORK
HOST2.MYNETWORK
HOST3.MYNETWORK
Such suggestion should favor fast computers (high MFLOPS) if the load average is low and, as load average increases for a given node, it should favor available nodes instead (i.e., I'd rather run in a slower computer with no users than in an eight-core with forty dudes logged in).
How should I prioritize? What algorithm (rationale) would you use? Again, what I have is:
Load Average (1min, 5min, 15min)
MFLOPS measure
Number of users logged in
RAM (installed and available)
Number of cores (important to normalize the load average)
Any thoughts? Thanks!
You don't have enough data to make an well-informed decision. It sounds as though the scheduling is very volatile: "At any given time, there can be anywhere from zero to dozens of people connected to a given box." So the current load does not necessarily reflect the future load of the machines.
To properly asses what hosts someone should use to minimize computation time would require knowing when the current jobs will terminate. If a powerful machine is about to be done doing most of its jobs, it would be a good candidate even though it currently has a high load.
If you want to guess purely on the current situation, you can do a weighed calculation to find out which hosts have the most MFLOPS available.
MFLOPS available = host's MFLOPS + (number of logical processors - load average)
Sort the hosts by MFLOPS available and suggest them in a descending order.
This formula assumes that the MFLOPS of a host is linearly related to its load average. This might not be exactly true, but it's probably fairly close.
I would favor the most recent load average since it's closer to the current/future situation, whereas, jobs from 15 minutes ago might have completed by now.
Have you considered a distributed approach to computation? Not all computations can be broken up such that more than one cpu can work on them. But perhaps your problem space can benefit from some parallelization. Have a look at Hadoop.
You don't need to know FLOPS. beowulf modules paralell computing center has I go to has the script for sure
PDC operates leading-edge, high-performance computers on a national level. PDC offers easily accessible computational resources that primarily cater to the ...