Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Characterization and Architectural Implications of Big Data Workloads (1506.07943v1)

Published 26 Jun 2015 in cs.DC, cs.DB, and cs.PF

Abstract: Big data areas are expanding in a fast way in terms of increasing workloads and runtime systems, and this situation imposes a serious challenge to workload characterization, which is the foundation of innovative system and architecture design. The previous major efforts on big data benchmarking either propose a comprehensive but a large amount of workloads, or only select a few workloads according to so-called popularity, which may lead to partial or even biased observations. In this paper, on the basis of a comprehensive big data benchmark suite---BigDataBench, we reduced 77 workloads to 17 representative workloads from a micro-architectural perspective. On a typical state-of-practice platform---Intel Xeon E5645, we compare the representative big data workloads with SPECINT, SPECCFP, PARSEC, CloudSuite and HPCC. After a comprehensive workload characterization, we have the following observations. First, the big data workloads are data movement dominated computing with more branch operations, taking up to 92% percentage in terms of instruction mix, which places them in a different class from Desktop (SPEC CPU2006), CMP (PARSEC), HPC (HPCC) workloads. Second, corroborating the previous work, Hadoop and Spark based big data workloads have higher front-end stalls. Comparing with the traditional workloads i. e. PARSEC, the big data workloads have larger instructions footprint. But we also note that, in addition to varied instruction-level parallelism, there are significant disparities of front-end efficiencies among different big data workloads. Third, we found complex software stacks that fail to use state-of-practise processors efficiently are one of the main factors leading to high front-end stalls. For the same workloads, the L1I cache miss rates have one order of magnitude differences among diverse implementations with different software stacks.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Lei Wang (975 papers)
  2. Jianfeng Zhan (92 papers)
  3. Zhen Jia (34 papers)
  4. Rui Han (79 papers)
Citations (8)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.