Publication | Open Access
Comparative analysis of periodic state saving techniques in time warp simulators
10
Citations
8
References
1995
Year
EngineeringSimulationDiscrete-event SimulationHardware SystemsStabilityTime Warp SimulatorsTiming AnalysisParallel SimulatorSystems EngineeringFault RecoveryModeling And SimulationParallel ComputingComparative AnalysisTimed SystemNonlinear Time SeriesPeriodic StateComputer EngineeringLarge-scale SimulationSpace-time SimulationDistributed SystemsComputer ScienceCheckpoint Interval χReal-time SimulationDistributed SimulationTime Warp SimulatorReal-time SystemsParallel ProgrammingAsynchronous Systems
Checkpointing in a time warp synchronized parallel simulator is a necessary and potentially expensive operation. In the simple case, a time warp simulator checkpoints every χ events, for some fixed value χ. For larger values of χ, the simulator requires less overhead for saving the state, but incurs an increased latency during rollback. Thus, the problem is to balance the time to save states against the time to coast forward upon rollback. Unfortunately, a static determination of a optimal value for χ is very difficult and can vary widely, even between closely related instances of a time warp simulator. Furthermore, the optimal checkpoint interval may actually vary over the lifetime of the simulation. To address these problems, several investigators have proposed dynamically adjusting the checkpoint interval χ as the simulation progresses. This paper analyzes three previous techniques for dynamically sizing checkpoint intervals and presents a new, heuristic algorithm for this purpose. All four techniques are implemented in a common application domain (digital system simulation from VHDL descriptions) and a direct comparison between the algorithms is performed. The results show a significant difference in the performance of the implemented algorithms. However, in virtually all cases, the dynamic algorithms performed near or better than the best static value. Furthermore, the best algorithms performed as much as 12% better than the best static value.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1