[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
wgould@stata.com (William Gould, StataCorp LP) |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: re: building a 'dream' stata desktop setup |

Date |
Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:41:57 -0500 |

David Airey <david.airey@Vanderbilt.Edu> wrote, > [...] Intel has now recommended programmers prepare their code for more > cores than currently on the market or imaginable (i.e., 100s to 1000s). What > are we going to pay for Stata then? Clearly, Stata is charging more because > they can and those who buy 8 core machines have money in their pockets. When > it is the norm to have a larger number of cores, prices will not be by the > core, or no one will buy Stata. I suspect David is imagining that all that was required to produce Stata/MP was recompiling Stata by specifying a compiler option and then selling the product. If that were the case, I would agree with David. That is not what we did. Stata/MP was a major rewrite of Stata, the purpose of which was to work directly with the multiple cores. This involved not just parallelizing code, but deciding where and how deeply to parallelize, and rewriting computation algorithms to be amenable to parallelization. Stata/MP was a major effort and it still is. Multiple developers work full time parallelizing more and more of Stata. In fact, nowadays one could produce a multiprocessor product simply by compiling single-processor code using a sophisticated compilers just released in the last few months. The latest Intel compiler has just such a feature, and as a result, we may be about to see programs, including statistical packages, that run on "all the cores". The problem is, such automatic techniques for producing parallel software does not work nearly as well as custom coding efforts such as those performed for Stata/MP. Here's a table: -------------------- run time ------------------- -- Stata/MP - Automatic method Processors Perfect MP-A MP-E Alt. 1 Alt. 2 -------------------------------000---------------------------------- 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 .50 .72 .57 .94 .87 4 .25 .50 .35 .90 .81 8 .125 .42 .24 .89 .77 40 .025 .35 .15 .87 .75 400 .003 .33 .13 .87 .74 4,000 .0003 .33 .13 .87 .74 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Parallelizeable regions are 100% for Perfect, 66.6% MP-A, 87% for MP-E, 13% for Alt. 1, and 26% for Alt. 2. Numbers for Stata/MP based on actual measurement. MP-A reports results for all Stata commands. MP-E reports results for all estimation commands. Alt. 1 is a generous estimates of what can be achieved by automatic compiler methods today. Alt. 2 is a generous estimate of what may be achievable by automatic compiler methods in the future. Alternatives 1 and 2 above are admittedly made up, but they have been made up generously. Alternative 1, for instance, is supposed to be what is achievable by today's compilers, yet using the current Intel compiler, we cannot achieve such results. The results reported in the Alternative 2 column are about twice as good as we think are theoretically possible with automated methods. The numbers in the Stata/MP column are overall observed averages with an extrapolation to 400 and 4,000 processors. I admit I am in the process of setting up a straw man and knocking him over. I am setting up the straw man because I suspect the "specify the option and recompile" model is, unconciously, the underlying assumption in everyone's mind when first thinking about this issue. So let's understand the implications of the table. Stata/MP running on two cores produces better performance than either automatic alternative running even on 4,000 cores. Stata/MP on four cores does even better, and indeed we are charging you for that. David is right when he states, "Stata is charging more because they can and those who buy 8 core machines have money in their pockets". I would say it differently, of course. I would say that Stata with 4 cores produces a lot more performance than Stata with 1 or 2 cores, and so the price is justified. In part, the price is justified because making parallel algorithms work efficiently on more than two cores requires a surprising amount of extra work. The problem is, you don't necessarily want to run on all of them because the setup costs could be too great. Instead, you must develop a subsystem that decides problem-by-problem, based on current conditions, exactly how many processors should be used for each little piece of the calculation. Nonetheless, David would be absolutely correct to say to that StataCorp chose to charge more for 4-core Stata than 2-core than costs could justify. That's always the case with software: the cost of development is an up-front cost and afterwards, prices are set to spread those costs (and profits) in ways that seem equitable. -- Bill wgould@stata.com * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: re: building a 'dream' stata desktop setup***From:*David Airey <david.airey@Vanderbilt.Edu>

**RE: st: re: building a 'dream' stata desktop setup***From:*"Verkuilen, Jay" <JVerkuilen@gc.cuny.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: GAM using Stata 10** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: re: building a 'dream' stata desktop setup** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: a question for you** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: re: building a 'dream' stata desktop setup** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |