1 / 26

Hoang Bui CMPS 5443

A Comparison of Parallel Sorting Algorithms on Different Architectures Nancy M. Amato, Ravishankar Iyer, Sharad Sundaresan and Yan Wu Texas A&M University. Hoang Bui CMPS 5443. Overview. Introduction Machine Descriptions Parallel Sorting Algorithms Experimental Results

ronan-hodges
Download Presentation

Hoang Bui CMPS 5443

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of Parallel Sorting Algorithms on Different ArchitecturesNancy M. Amato, Ravishankar Iyer, Sharad Sundaresan and Yan WuTexas A&M University Hoang Bui CMPS 5443

  2. Overview • Introduction • Machine Descriptions • Parallel Sorting Algorithms • Experimental Results • Comparisons and Recommendations

  3. Introduction • Sorting is one of the fundamental problems. • Sequential sorting and Parallel sorting. • Variety of parallel architectures. • Experimental study of three algorithms: • Bitonic sort, sample sort & parallel radix sort. • Apply to three different machines.

  4. Machine Descriptions • The MasPar MP1201. • The nCUBE 2. • The Sequent Balance.

  5. The MasPar MP1201 • SIMD machine. • 2,048 processors, 1.8 MIPS, 16Kbytes RAM. • Mesh based architecture. • X-Net and Global Router for communication. • Programming languages: C-Like and Fortran.

  6. The nCUBE 2 • MIMD machine. • 64 processors, 7.5 MIPS 1Mbyte RAM. • Hypercube architecture. • Broadcasting. • Language: C.

  7. The Sequent Balance • MIMD. • Shared Memory • 10 processors, 8 Kbytes RAM. • Communicate through shared memory. • Running Unix, language: C.

  8. Parallel Sorting Algorithms • Bitonic Sort. • Sample Sort. • Parallel Radix Sort.

  9. Bitonic Sort • Bitonic Sequence: • Is the concatenation of an ascending and descending sequence of numbers. • Example: 2,4,6,8,9,24,6,3,2,0. • Algorithm: • Convert n numbers into a bitonic sequence with n/2 numbers in an increasing subsequence. • Merge into an ordered sequence (increasing or decreasing.)

  10. Sample sort • Algorithm: • Select p-1 splitters  p buckets. • Each number is put into the appropriate bucket. • Sort each buckets.

  11. Parallel Radix Sort • Example list: • 170, 45, 75, 90, 2, 24, 802, 66 • Algorithm: • sorting by least significant digit (1s place) gives:170, 90, 2, 802, 24, 45, 75, 66. • sorting by next digit (10s place) gives:2, 802, 24, 45, 66, 170, 75, 90 . • sorting by most significant digit (100s place) gives:2, 24, 45, 66, 75, 90, 170, 802

  12. Experimental Results • Make modifications to each machine. • Code was written in C. • Keys are randomly generated 32 bit integers. • Repeat 25 times and calculate the average.

  13. The MasPar MP1202 – Bitonic sort • Good speed-ups for all input size.

  14. The MasPar MP1202 – Sample sort • Also good speed-ups.

  15. The MasPar MP1202 – Radix sort • Shortest time for the MasPar MP1202.

  16. The MasPar MP1202 • Comparisons:

  17. The nCUBE 2 – Bitonic Sort

  18. The nCUBE 2 – Sample Sort

  19. The nCUBE 2 – Radix Sort

  20. The nCUBE 2

  21. The Sequent Balance – Bitonic sort

  22. The Sequent Balance – Sample sort

  23. The Sequent Balance – Radix sort

  24. The Sequent Balance

  25. Comparisons and Recommendations • MasPar MP1202: • Bitonic Sort for smaller input size. • Parallel Radix Sort for larger input size. • nCUBBE 2: • Sample Sort is the best. • Sequent Balance: • Sample Sort for smaller input size. • Parallel Radix Sort for larger input size.

  26. Question

More Related