Distributed Training Large-Scale Deep Architectures

Scale of data and scale of computation infrastructures together enable the current deep learning renaissance. However, training large-scale deep architectures demands both algorithmic improvement and careful system configuration. In this paper, we focus on employing the system approach to speed up large-scale training. Via lessons learned from our routine benchmarking effort, we first identify bottlenecks and overheads that hinter data parallelism. We then devise guidelines that help practitioners to configure an effective system and fine-tune parameters to achieve desired speedup. Specifically, we develop a procedure for setting minibatch size and choosing computation algorithms. We also derive lemmas for determining the quantity of key components such as the number of GPUs and parameter servers. Experiments and examples show that these guidelines help effectively speed up large-scale deep learning training

Scaling Deep Learning on GPU and Knights Landing clusters

The speed of deep neural networks training has become a big bottleneck of deep learning research and development. For example, training GoogleNet by ImageNet dataset on one Nvidia K20 GPU needs 21 days. To speed up the training process, the current deep learning systems heavily rely on the hardware accelerators. However, these accelerators have limited on-chip memory compared with CPUs. To handle large datasets, they need to fetch data from either CPU memory or remote processors. We use both self-hosted Intel Knights Landing (KNL) clusters and multi-GPU clusters as our target platforms. From an algorithm aspect, current distributed machine learning systems are mainly designed for cloud systems. These methods are asynchronous because of the slow network and high fault-tolerance requirement on cloud systems. We focus on Elastic Averaging SGD (EASGD) to design algorithms for HPC clusters. Original EASGD used round-robin method for communication and updating. The communication is ordered by the machine rank ID, which is inefficient on HPC clusters. First, we redesign four efficient algorithms for HPC systems to improve EASGD's poor scaling on clusters. Async EASGD, Async MEASGD, and Hogwild EASGD are faster \textcolor{black}{than} their existing counterparts (Async SGD, Async MSGD, and Hogwild SGD, resp.) in all the comparisons. Finally, we design Sync EASGD, which ties for the best performance among all the methods while being deterministic. In addition to the algorithmic improvements, we use some system-algorithm codesign techniques to scale up the algorithms. By reducing the percentage of communication from 87% to 14%, our Sync EASGD achieves 5.3x speedup over original EASGD on the same platform. We get 91.5% weak scaling efficiency on 4253 KNL cores, which is higher than the state-of-the-art implementation

Petuum: A New Platform for Distributed Machine Learning on Big Data

What is a systematic way to efficiently apply a wide spectrum of advanced ML programs to industrial scale problems, using Big Models (up to 100s of billions of parameters) on Big Data (up to terabytes or petabytes)? Modern parallelization strategies employ fine-grained operations and scheduling beyond the classic bulk-synchronous processing paradigm popularized by MapReduce, or even specialized graph-based execution that relies on graph representations of ML programs. The variety of approaches tends to pull systems and algorithms design in different directions, and it remains difficult to find a universal platform applicable to a wide range of ML programs at scale. We propose a general-purpose framework that systematically addresses data- and model-parallel challenges in large-scale ML, by observing that many ML programs are fundamentally optimization-centric and admit error-tolerant, iterative-convergent algorithmic solutions. This presents unique opportunities for an integrative system design, such as bounded-error network synchronization and dynamic scheduling based on ML program structure. We demonstrate the efficacy of these system designs versus well-known implementations of modern ML algorithms, allowing ML programs to run in much less time and at considerably larger model sizes, even on modestly-sized compute clusters.Comment: 15 pages, 10 figures, final version in KDD 2015 under the same titl