Minimizing the Null Message Exchange in Conservative Distributed Simulation
The performance of a conservative time management algorithm in a distributed simulation system degrade s significantly if a large number of null messages are exchanged across the logical processes in order to avoid deadlock. This situation gets more severe when the exchange of null messages is increased due to the poor selection of key parameters such as lookahead values. However, with a mathematical model that can approximate the optimal values of parameters that are directly involved in the performance of a time management algorithm, we can limit the exchange of null messages. The reduction in the exchange of null messages greatly improves the performance of the time management algorithm by both minimizing the transmission overhead and maintaining a consistent parallelization. This paper presents a generic mathematical model that can be effectively used to evaluate the performance of a conservative distributed simulation system that uses null messages to avoid deadlock. Since the proposed mathematical model is generic, the performance of any conservative synchronization algorithm can be approximated. In addition, we develop a performance model that demonstrates that how a conservative distributed simulation system performs with the null message algorithm (NMA). The simulation results show that the performance of a conservative distributed system degrades if the NMA generates an excessive number of null messages due to the improper selection of parameters. In addition, the proposed mathematical model presents the critical role of lookahead which may increase or decrease the amount of null messages across the logical processes. Furthermore, the proposed mathematical model is not limited to NMA. It can also be used with any conservative synchronization algorithm to approximate the optimal values of parameters.
Keywordsconservative distributed simulation Lookahead logical processes null messages null message algorithm
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- R. M. Fujimoto, “Distributed Simulation system,” preceding of the 2003 winter simulation conference. College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
- Y.M. Teo, Y.K. Ng and B.S.S. Onggo, “Conservative Simulation using Distributed Shared Memory,” Proceedings of the 16 th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS-02), IEEE Computer Society, 2002.Google Scholar
- B. R. Preiss, W. M. Loucks, J. D. MacIntyre, J. A. Field, “Null Message Cancellation in Conservative Distributed Simulation,” Distributed Simulation 91 Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Advances in Parallel and Distributed Simulation, 1991.Google Scholar
- W. L. Bain, and D. S. Scott, “An Algorithm for Time Synchronization in Distributed Discrete Event Simulation”, Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation, 19, 3 (February), pp. 30-33, 1988.Google Scholar
- B. A. Cota and R. G. Sargent, “An Algorithm for Parallel Discrete Event Simulation using Common Memory,” Proc. 22nd Ann. Simulation Symp., pp. 23-31, March 1989.Google Scholar
- J. K. Peacock, J. W. Wong, and E. Manning, “Synchronization of Distributed Simulation using Broadcast Algorithms,” Computer Networks, Vol. 4, pp. 3-10, 1980.Google Scholar
- L. A. Belfore, S. Mazumdar, and S. S. Rizvi et al., “Integrating the joint operation feasibility tool with JFAST,” Proceedings of the Fall 2006 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando Fl, September 10-15 2006.Google Scholar
- D. M. Nicol and P. F. Reynolds, “Problem Oriented Protocol Design,” Proc. 1984 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 471-474, Nov. 1984.Google Scholar
- J. K. Peacock, J. W. Wong, and E. Manning, “A Distributed Approach to Queuing Network Simulation,” Proc. 1979 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 39 9-406, Dec. 1979.Google Scholar