Data Pruning Mechanism in Daskvine

In our recent work, we introduced a file pruning technique into DaskVine to address challenges in managing intermediate files in DAG-based task graphs. This technique systematically identifies and removes intermediate stale files—those no longer needed by downstream tasks—directly from worker nodes. By freeing up storage in real time, file pruning not only enables workers to process more computational tasks with limited disk space but also makes applications feasible that were previously constrained by storage limitations.

Specifically, the pruning algorithm monitors task execution in the graph, categorizing tasks as waiting or completed. Once a task finishes, it prunes its parent tasks’ output files if all dependent child tasks are done and immediately submits dependent tasks for execution when their inputs are ready.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our file pruning technique, we utilized four key metrics:

File Retention Rate (FRR): FRR represents the ratio of a file's retention time on storage to the total workflow execution time. It indicates how long files remain in storage relative to the workflow's progress. A shorter FRR reflects more efficient pruning. The following figures show the FRR over all intermediate files, each producing by one specific task. The left graph (FCFS) shows higher and more uniform FRR, where files remain on storage for a significant portion of the workflow. In contrast, the right graph (FCFS with Pruning) shows a clear reduction in FRR for most files, which proves that pruning reduces storage usage by removing stale files promptly.

Accumulated Storage Consumption (ASC) and Accumulated File Count (AFC): ASC measures the total amount of storage consumed across all worker nodes throughout the workflow execution, while AFC tracks the total number of files retained across all worker nodes during the workflow. In the following, the left graph shows that both ASC and AFC steadily increase throughout the workflow, peaking at 1082.94 GB and 299,787 files, respectively. This highlights significant storage pressure without pruning. The right graph demonstrates dramatic reductions, with peaks at 326.78 GB for ASC and 80,239 files for AFC. This confirms that pruning effectively reduces storage consumption and file count by promptly removing unnecessary intermediate files.

Worker Storage Consumption (WSC): WSC reflects the storage consumption of individual workers at any point during the workflow execution. It helps assess the balance of storage usage among workers. The left graph shows a peak WSC of 24.95 GB, indicating high storage pressure on individual workers. In contrast, the right graph shows a significantly lower peak of 7.07 GB, demonstrating that pruning effectively reduces storage usage per worker and balances the load across the cluster.

TaskVine + Parsl Integration

 The Cooperative Computing Lab team has an ongoing collaboration with the Parsl Project, maintaining the TaskVine Executor for use with the Parsl workflow system. Using the TaskVine executor involves expressing an application using the Parsl API, where tasks are created and managed using the Parsl Data Flow Kernel. Tasks are passed to the executor which makes final scheduling decisions. 

The TaskVine executor offers a number of features involving data management and locality scheduling. The distinction between the TaskVine executor and other available executors is largely the awareness of data dependencies and the use of node-local storage. There are a number of features to the TaskVine executor that have been recently added or are in progress. 

One prominent new feature is the extension of TaskVine function invocations to the TaskVine executor. Function invocations reduce the overhead of starting new tasks, considerably benefiting workflows with many short-running tasks. TaskVine function calls have been described with greater detail in this article by Thanh Son Phung. This benefit to task startup latency is especially useful for the Parsl/TaskVine executor, since Parsl is a python-native application. Normally each task must consider starting a new python process and loading all modules used by Parsl as well as the user's application. With short running tasks, such as ones resembling quick function calls, the overhead of loading this information from shared storage, or transferring it to local storage and starting a new python process can be greater than the running time of the task itself. TaskVine function invocations allow this runtime environment information to be effectively cached, and multiple tasks to run sequentially in the same python process. A molecular dynamics application using the Parsl/TaskVine executor is shown below, with L1 being simple tasks, and L2 using TaskVine function invocations.

Other new changes to the TaskVine executor include the addition of the tune_parameters to the executor configuration. TaskVine is highly configurable by users to suit the needs of their particular application or cluster resources. Adding this option to the TaskVine executor allows users to automatically replicate intermediate data, configure the degree of replication desired, disable peer transfers, and several in-depth scheduling options which fit different specific task dispatch and retrieval patterns. 

Accelerating Function-Centric Applications via Reusable Function Context in Workflow Systems

Modern applications are increasingly being written in high-level programming languages (e.g., Python) via popular parallel frameworks (e.g., Parsl, TaskVine, Ray) as they help users quickly translate an experiment or idea into working code that is easily executable and parallelizable on HPC clusters or supercomputers. Figure 1 shows the typical software stack of these frameworks, where users wrap computations into functions, which are sent to and managed by a parallel library as a DAG of tasks, and these tasks eventually are scheduled by an execution engine to execute on a remote worker node.



A traditional way to execute functions remotely is to translate them into executable tasks by serializing functions and their associated arguments into input files, such that these functions and arguments are later reconstructed on remote nodes for execution. While this way fits function-centric applications naturally into well understood task-based workflow systems, it brings a hefty penalty to short-running functions. A function now takes extra time for its states to be sent and reconstructed on a remote node which are then unnecessarily destroyed at the end of that function’s execution.


At HPDC 2024, graduate students Thanh Son Phung and Colin Thomas proposed the idea that function contexts, or states, should be decoupled from function’s actual execution code. This removes the overhead of repeatedly sending and reconstructing a function’s state for execution, and allows functions of the same type to share the same context. The rest of the work then addresses how a workflow system can treat a function as a first-class citizen by discovering, distributing, and retaining such context from a function. Figure below shows the execution time of the Large-Scale Neural Network Inference application, totaling 1.6 million inferences separated into 100k tasks, with increasing levels of context sharing (L1 is no sharing, L3 is maximum sharing). Decoupling the inference function’s context from the inference massively reduces the execution time of the entire workflow by 94.5%, from around 2 hours to approximately 7 minutes.




An interested reader can find more details about this work in the paper:Thanh Son Phung, Colin Thomas, Logan Ward, Kyle Chard, and Douglas Thain. 2024. Accelerating Function-Centric Applications by Discovering, Distributing, and Retaining Reusable Context in Workflow Systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing (HPDC '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1145/3625549.3658663

A New Visualization Tool for TaskVine Released

We released a web-based tool to visualize runtime logs produced by TaskVine, available on Github. Using this tool involves two main steps. First, the required data in CSV format must be generated for the manager, workers, tasks, and input/output files. After saving the generated data in the directory, users can start a port on their workstation to view detailed information about the run. This approach offers two key advantages: the generated data can be reused multiple times, minimizing the overhead of regeneration, and users can also develop custom code to analyze the structured data and extract relevant insights.

For example, the first section describes the general information of this run, including the start/end time of the manager, how many tasks are submitted, how many of them succeeded or failed, etc.

The second section describes the manager's storage usage through its lifetime, the a-axis starts from when the manager is started, and ends when the manager is terminated, the y-axis is in MB unit, and such pattern is applied to all diagrams in this report.

The third section is the table of all workers' information, which is basically grabbed from the csv files from the backend, but this enables users to easily sort by their interested columns.

The fourth section is the storage consumption among all workers. Several buttons in the top are provided, to turn the y-axis to a percentage unit, or to highlight one worker that is of interest.

The fifth section is the number of connected workers throughout the manager's lifetime, hovering the mouse on a point shows the information of a connected/disconnected worker.

The sixth section shows the number of concurrent workers throughout the manager's lifetime.

The seventh section is table of completed/failed tasks and their information.

The eighth section is the execution time distribution of different tasks. Those with a lower index on the left side of the x-axis are submitted earlier, while those on the right are submitted later. A CDF can be seen by clicking the button on the top.

The nineth section shows the task count, average execution time and max execution time of different task categories. One category can comprise multiple tasks that have a similar behavior, such as having the same function name but with different inputs.

The tenth section demonstrates the general runtime distribution of tasks, the y-axis is the worker-slot pair. In the following example, we have 64 workers and each with 20 cores. One can zoom in the diagram and hover to see the detailed information of one task, which is particularly useful when examining outliers.

The last section is about the structure of the compute graphs. Nodes in the graph are tasks with an index label, while edges are the dependencies between input/output files of tasks. Weights on those task->file edges are the execution time of tasks, while those on the file->task edges are the waiting time starting from when a file is produced to when it is consumed by a consumer task.

This tool works well under the scale of hundreds of thousands of tasks, but for large runs, which may have millions of tasks, the online visualization tool may be unable to process such amount of data because the data transferring bottleneck between backend and frontend. Under such case, or just for convenience, we recommend the users to use tools under the pyplot directory, which is more lightweight and uses traditional matplotlib and seaborn to draw diagrams. Detailed explanations are provided under the README file.

Integrating TaskVine with Merlin

 Graduate student, Barry Sly-Delgado, completed a summer internship onsite at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where he worked on integrating TaskVine with Merlin, an executor for machine learning workflows. Barry worked as a member of the WEAVE team under Brian Gunnarson and Charles Doutriaux. 

Previously, Merlin used Celery to distribute tasks across a compute cluster. With TaskVine's addition, utilization of in-cluster resources (bandwidth, disk) is available for workflow execution. Existing Merlin specifiacations can use TaskVine as a task scheduler with little change to the specification itself.

Merlin works with TaskVine by utilizing the Vine Stem, a DAG manager that borrows the concepts of groups and chains to create workflows from Celery. With this, the Vine Stem sends tasks (Merlin Steps) to the TaskVine manager for execution. Execution of these tasks eventually create a directory hierarchy that previous Merlin workflows already do. In addition to the workflow specification, a Merlin Specification contains specifications for starting workers, which are submitted via a batch system (HTCondor, UGE,Slurm)

                                 Architecture of Merlin with TaskVine

 

 

             Sample Merlin Specification Block With TaskVine as Task Server

 

 The TaskVine task server option will be included in an upcoming release of Merlin. We would be happy to find more use cases so please check it out once released!

 

 

Introducing Shepherd: Simplifying Integration of Service Workflows into Task-Based Workflows

We are pleased to announce the release of Shepherd, an open-source tool designed to streamline the integration of service workflows into task-based workflows. Shepherd enables users to manage applications that require dynamic dependencies and state monitoring, ensuring that each component in a workflow starts only after its dependencies have reached specified states.

What Is Shepherd?

Shepherd is a local workflow manager and service orchestrator that launches and monitors applications according to a user-defined configuration. It bridges the gap between persistent services and traditional task-based workflows by treating services as first-class tasks. This approach allows for seamless integration of services that run indefinitely or until explicitly stopped, alongside actions that run to completion.

By analyzing log outputs and file contents, Shepherd tracks the internal states of tasks without the need to modify their original code. This capability is particularly useful when integrating persistent services into workflows where tasks may depend on the internal states of these services rather than their completion.

Key Features

• Services as Tasks: Treats both actions (tasks that run to completion) and services (persistent tasks that require explicit termination) as tasks within a workflow, allowing integration into task-based workflow managers.
• Dynamic Dependency Management: Initiates tasks based on the internal states of other tasks, enabling complex state-based dependencies. Supports both "any" and "all" dependency modes for flexible configurations.
• State Monitoring: Continuously monitors the internal state of each task by analyzing standard output and specified files, updating states in real-time based on user-defined patterns.
• Graceful Startup and Shutdown: Ensures tasks start only when their dependencies are met and provides controlled shutdown mechanisms to maintain system stability and prevent data loss.
• Logging and Visualization: Generates comprehensive logs and state transition data, aiding in performance analysis and debugging.
• Integration with Larger Workflows: By encapsulating service workflows into single tasks, Shepherd enables integration with larger distributed workflow managers, enhancing workflow flexibility and reliability.

Documentation and Source Code

For detailed documentation, examples, and source code, please visit the Shepherd GitHub Repository.

TaskVine at ParslFest 2024

On September 26-27 members of the CCL team attended ParslFest 2024 in Chicago, Illinois to speak about TaskVine and connect with our ongoing collaborators at the Parsl Project.

Grad student Colin Thomas delivered a talk titled "Parsl/TaskVine: Interactions between DAG Manager and Workflow Executor." 

 The talk highlighted recent developments in the implementation of TaskVine Temporary Files within the Parsl/TaskVine Executor. Temporary files allow users to express intermediate data in their workflows. Intermediate data are items produced by tasks, and consumed by tasks. With the use of TaskVine Temporary Files, this intermediate data will remain in the cluster for the duration of a workflow. Keeping this data in the cluster can benefit a workflow that produces intermediate files of considerable quantity or size.

 In addition to adding temporary files to the Parsl/TaskVine executor, the talk presented ongoing work on the development of intermediate data-based "task-grouping" in TaskVine and extending it to the TaskVine executor. The concept of grouping related tasks may sound familiar to Pegasus users or other pre-compiled DAG workflow systems. Currently task-grouping is focused on scheduling sequences of tasks which contain intermediate dependencies. The desired outcome is for TaskVine to interpret pieces of the DAG to identify series of sequentially-dependent tasks in order to schedule them on the same worker, such that intermediate data does not need to travel to another host. Extending this capability to Parsl brought about an interesting challenge which questioned the relationship between DAG manager and executor. 

The problem is that in the typical workflow executor scheme, such as with Parsl or Dask, the executor will receive tasks from the DAG manager only when they are ready to run. In order for TaskVine to identify sequentially dependent tasks it needs to receive tasks which are future dependencies of those that are ready to run. 

The solution to this came about as a special implementation of a Data Staging Provider in Parsl, which is the mechanism for determining whether data dependencies are met. When the TaskVine staging provider encounters temporary files, it will lie to the Parsl DFK (Data Flow Kernel) in saying the file exists. Therefore Parsl will send all temporary-dependent tasks to TaskVine without waiting for the files to actually materialize. This offers TaskVine relevant pieces of the DAG to inspect and identify dependent sequences.

The impact of task grouping was evaluated on a benchmark application. Each benchmark run consists of 20 task sequences of variable length. Each task in a sequence produces and consumes an intermediate file of variable size. The effect on running time is shown while adjusting these parameters. Grouping tasks was shown to benefit the performance across a variety of sequence lengths, and when intermediate data size exceeds 500MB. 

In addition to the positive benchmark results, this talk promoted discussion about this non-traditional interaction between DAG manager and executor. The DAG manager has insight into future tasks and their dependencies.  The executor possesses knowledge about data locality. Combining this information to make better scheduling decisions proved to have some utility, yet it challenged the typical scheme of communication between Parsl and the TaskVine executor.