Advertisement

BOA: batch orchestration algorithm for straggler mitigation of distributed DL training in heterogeneous GPU cluster

  • Eunju Yang
  • Dong-Ki Kang
  • Chan-Hyun YounEmail author
Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Training deep learning model is a time-consuming job since it usually uses a large amount of data. To reduce the training time, most practitioners train the models in a GPU cluster environment in a distributed way. The synchronous stochastic gradient descent, which is one of the widely used distributed training algorithms, has fast convergence rate with the use of multiple GPU workers; but its speed is tied to the slowest worker, i.e., straggler. In a heterogeneous environment, a static straggler, which has not been mainly focused before, has more impact on the performance than randomly occurring straggler. However, most existing studies for straggler mitigation usually consider a homogeneous environment, so their approaches are limited in practice. In this paper, we scrutinize the straggler problem under heterogeneous environment and define static and dynamic straggler from empirical results. Based on this, we propose a novel approach called batch orchestration algorithm (BOA) for straggler mitigation. It adaptively balances the amount of mini-batch data according to the speed of workers. Therefore, BOA can mitigate both static and dynamic straggler in a modern GPU cluster. BOA uses a Min–Max Integer programming to find the optimal mini-batch size, with the hardware-agnostic performance models. For verification, several experiments are conducted on a cluster having up to six GPUs with three types: GTX 1080, GTX 1060 and Quadro M2000. The results show BOA mitigates both types of stragglers and accelerates the training speed with synchronous SGD compared to other straggler mitigation method.

Keywords

Batch size Distributed training Distributed deep learning Heterogeneous GPU cluster Straggler Synchronous SGD 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST) grant by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. CAP-17-03-KISTI).

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi M, Barham P, Chen J, Chen Z, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Irving G, Isard M, Kudlur M, Levenberg J, Monga R, Moore S, Murray DG, Steiner B, Tucker P, Vasudevan V, Warden P, Wicke M, Yu Y, Zheng X (2016) Tensorflow: a system for large-scale machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI’16, Berkeley, CA, USA. USENIX Association, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd S, Mattingley J (2007) Branch and bound methods. Notes for EE364b, Stanford University, pp 2006–2007Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen J, Pan X, Monga R, Bengio S, Jozefowicz R (2016) Revisiting distributed synchronous SGD. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00981
  4. 4.
    Chetlur S, Woolley C, Vandermersch P, Cohen J, Tran J, Catanzaro B, Shelhamer E (2014) cudnn: efficient primitives for deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.0759
  5. 5.
    Coates A, Huval B, Wang T, Wu D, Catanzaro B, Andrew N (2013) Deep learning with COTS HPC systems. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp 1337–1345Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dean J, Corrado G, Monga R, Chen K, Devin M, Mao M, Senior A, Tucker P, Yang K, Le QV et al (2012) Large scale distributed deep networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1223–1231Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diamond S, Boyd S (2016) CVXPY: a python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization. J Mach Learn Res 17(83):1–5MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferdinand N, Gharachorloo B, Draper SC (2017) Anytime exploitation of stragglers in synchronous stochastic gradient descent. In: 2017 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), pp 141–146Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Google. grpcGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goyal P, Dollár P, Girshick R, Noordhuis P, Wesolowski L, Kyrola A, Tulloch A, Jia Y, He K (2017) Accurate, large minibatch SGD: training imagenet in 1 hour. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02677
  11. 11.
    Harlap A, Cui H, Dai W, Wei J, Ganger GR, Gibbons PB, Gibson GA, Xing EP (2016) Addressing the straggler problem for iterative convergent parallel ML. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC’16, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp 98–111Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp 770–778Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iandola FN, Moskewicz MW, Ashraf K, Keutzer K (2016) Firecaffe: near-linear acceleration of deep neural network training on compute clusters. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp 2592–2600Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeon M, Venkataraman S, Qian J, Phanishayee A, Xiao W, Yang F (2018) Multi-tenant GPU clusters for deep learning workloads: analysis and implications. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang J, Cui B, Zhang C, Yu L (2017) Heterogeneity-aware distributed parameter servers. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD’17, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp 463–478Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krizhevsky A, Hinton G (2009) Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical report, CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1097–1105Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P (1998) Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc IEEE 86(11):2278–2324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merkel D (2014) Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J 2014(239):2Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robbins H, Monro S (1951) A stochastic approximation method. The annals of mathematical statistics, pp 400–407Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tandon R, Lei Q, Dimakis AG, Karampatziakis N (2017) Gradient coding: avoiding stragglers in distributed learning. In: Precup D, Teh YW (eds) Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR. International Convention Centre, Sydney, Australia, 06–11 Aug 2017, pp 3368–3376Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yan F, Ruwase O, He Y, Chilimbi T (2015) Performance modeling and scalability optimization of distributed deep learning systems. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, pp 1355–1364Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang E, Kim S, Kim T, Jeon M, Park S, Youn C (2018) An adaptive batch-orchestration algorithm for the heterogeneous GPU cluster environment in distributed deep learning system. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp), pp 725–728Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang C, Ré C (2014) Dimmwitted: a study of main-memory statistical analytics. Proc VLDB Endow 7(12):1283–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zinkevich M, Weimer M, Li L, Smola AJ (2010) Parallelized stochastic gradient descent. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 2595–2603Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Korea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations