ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Parallel discrete event simulation
Full text PdfPdf (7.32 MB)
Source
Communications of the ACM archive
Volume 33 ,  Issue 10  (October 1990) table of contents
Special issue on simulation
Pages: 30 - 53  
Year of Publication: 1990
ISSN:0001-0782
Author
Richard M. Fujimoto  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 71,   Downloads (12 Months): 536,   Citation Count: 360
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   reviews   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/84537.84545
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Parallel discrete event simulation (PDES), sometimes called distributed simulation, refers to the execution of a single discrete event simulation program on a parallel computer. PDES has attracted a considerable amount of interest in recent years. From a pragmatic standpoint, this interest arises from the fact that large simulations in engineering, computer science, economics, and military applications, to mention a few, consume enormous amounts of time on sequential machines. From an academic point of view, parallel simulation is interesting because it represents a problem domain that often contains substantial amounts of parallelism (e.g., see [59]), yet paradoxically, is surprisingly difficult to parallelize in practice. A sufficiently general solution to the PDES problem may lead to new insights in parallel computation as a whole. Historically, the irregular, data-dependent nature of PDES programs has identified it as an application where vectorization techniques using supercomputer hardware provide little benefit [14].A discrete event simulation model assumes the system being simulated only changes state at discrete points in simulated time. The simulation model jumps from one state to another upon the occurrence of an event. For example, a simulator of a store-and-forward communication network might include state variables to indicate the length of message queues, the status of communication links (busy or idle), etc. Typical events might include arrival of a message at some node in the network, forwarding a message to another network node, component failures, etc.We are especially concerned with the simulation of asynchronous systems where events are not synchronized by a global clock, but rather, occur at irregular time intervals. For these systems, few simulator events occur at any single point in simulated time; therefore parallelization techniques based on lock-step execution using a global simulation clock perform poorly or require assumptions in the timing model that may compromise the fidelity of the simulation. Concurrent execution of events at different points in simulated time is required, but as we shall soon see, this introduces interesting synchronization problems that are at the heart of the PDES problem.This article deals with the execution of a simulation program on a parallel computer by decomposing the simulation application into a set of concurrently executing processes. For completeness, we conclude this section by mentioning other approaches to exploiting parallelism in simulation problems.Comfort and Shepard et al. have proposed using dedicated functional units to implement specific sequential simulation functions, (e.g., event list manipulation and random number generation [20, 23, 47]). This method can provide only a limited amount of speedup, however. Zhang, Zeigler, and Concepcion use the hierarchical decomposition of the simulation model to allow an event consisting of several subevents to be processed concurrently [21, 98]. A third alternative is to execute independent, sequential simulation programs on different processors [11, 39]. This replicated trials approach is useful if the simulation is largely stochastic and one is performing long simulation runs to reduce variance, or if one is attempting to simulate a specific simulation problem across a large number of different parameter settings. However, one drawback with this approach is that each processor must contain sufficient memory to hold the entire simulation. Furthermore, this approach is less suitable in a design environment where results of one experiment are used to determine the experiment that should be performed next because one must wait for a sequential execution to be completed before results are obtained.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
Agre, J.R. Simulations of time warp distributed simulations. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Di.- tributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), 85-90.
 
3
Ayani, R. A parallel simulation scheme based on the distance between objects. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 113-118.
 
4
Ayani, R. and Rajaei, H. Parallel simulation of a generalized cube multistage interconnection network. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 60-63.
 
5
Baezner, D., Cleary, J., Lomow, G., and Unger, B. Algorithmic optimizations of simulations on Time Warp. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 73-78.
 
6
Bagrodia, R.L., and Liao, W-T. Maisie: A language and optimizing environment for distributed simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 205-210.
 
7
Bain, W.L., and Scott, D.S. An algorithm for time synchronization in distributed discrete event simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 30-33.
 
8
Ball, D., and Hoyt, S. The adaptive Time-Warp concurrency control algorithm. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22 1 (January 1990), pp. 174- 177.
 
9
Bellenot, S. Global virtual time al- gorithms. In Proceedings of the Multiconference on Distributed Simulation, 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 122-127.
 
10
11
 
12
 
13
Cai, W., and Turner, S.J. An algorithm for distributed discrete-event simulation-the "carrier null message" approach. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 3-8.
 
14
Chandak, A., and Browne, J.C. Vectorization of discrete event simulation. In Proceedings of the 1983 International Conference on Parallel Processing (August 1983), pp. 359- 361.
 
15
Chandy, K.M., and Misra, J. Distributed simulation: A case study in design and verification of distributed programs. IEEE Trans. on Softtw. Eng. SE-5, 5 (September 1979), 440-452.
16
 
17
 
18
Chandy, K.M., and Sherman, R. The conditional event approach to distributed simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 93-99.
 
19
Chandy, K.M., and Sherman, R. Space, time, and simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 53-57.
 
20
Comfort, J.C. The simulation of a master-slave event set processor. Simulation 42 3 (March 1984), 117- 124.
 
21
 
22
23
 
24
 
25
Dickens, P.M., Reynolds, Jr., P.F. SRADS with local rollback. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1, (January 1990), pp. 161-164.
 
26
Dijkstra, E.W., and Scholten, C.S. Termination detection for diffusing computations. Inf. Proc. Lett. II 1 (August 1980), l-4.
 
27
Ebling, M., DiLorento, M., Presley, M., Wieland, F., and Jefferson, D.R. An ant foraging model implemented on the Time Warp Operatihg System. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22 2 (March 1989), pp. 21-26.
 
28
Fujimoto, R.M. Performance measurements of distributed simulation strategies. Trans. Sot. for Cornput. Simul. 6, 2 (April 1989), 89-132.
29
 
30
 
31
Fujimoto, R.M. Performance of Time Warp under synthetic workloads. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 23-28.
32
 
33
Gafni, A. Rollback mechanisms for optimistic distributed simulation systems. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 61-67.
 
34
Gates, B., and Marti, J. An empirical study of Time Warp request mechanisms. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 73-80.
 
35
Gilmer, J.B. An assessment of Time Warp parallel discrete event simulation algorithm performance. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 45-49.
 
36
 
37
Groselj, B., and Tropper, C. The time of next event algorithm. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 25-29.
 
38
Groselj, B., and Tropper, C. A deadlock resolution scheme for distributed simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21,'2 (March 1989), pp. 108-l 12.
39
 
40
Hontalas, P., Beckman, B., DiLorento, M., Blume, L., Reiher, P., Sturdevant, K., Van Warren, L., Wedel, J., Wieland, F., and Jefferson, D.R. Performance of the colliding pucks simulation on the Time Warp Operating System. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 3-7.
41
42
43
 
44
Jefferson, D.R., and Sowizral, H. Fast concurrent simulation using the Time Warp mechanism, part 1: Local control. Tech. Rep. N-1906- AF, RAND Corporation, December 1982.
45
46
47
 
48
Kumar, D. An approximate method to predict performance of a distributed simulation scheme. In Proceedings of the 1989 International Confer- ence on Parallel Processing 3 (August 1989), 259-262.
 
49
 
50
Leung, E., Cleary, J., Lomow, G., Baezner, D., and Unger, B. The effects of feedback on the perfor- mance of conservative algorithms. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 44-49.
51
 
52
Lin, Y-B., and Lazowska, E. Deter- mining the global virtual time in a distributed simulation. Tech. Rep. 90-01-02, Dept. OF Computer Sci-ence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1989.
 
53
Lin, Y-B., and Lazowska, E. Exploiting lookahead in parallel simulation. Tech. Rep. 89-10-06, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1989.
 
54
Lin, Y-B., and Lazowska, E.D. Optimality considerations of "Time Warp" parallel simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 29-34.
 
55
Lin, Y-B., Lazowska, E.D., and Baer, J-L. Conservative parallel simulation for systems with no lookahead prediction. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 144-149.
 
56
Lin, Y-B., and Lazowska, E. Reducing the state saving overhead for Time Warp parallel simulation. Tech. Rep. 90-02-03, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, February 1990.
 
57
Lipton, R.J., and Mizell, D.W. Time Warp vs. Chandy-Misra: A worstcase comparison. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 137-143.
 
58
Liu, L.Z., Tropper, C. Local deadlock detection in distributed simulations. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 64-69.
 
59
Livny, M. A study of parallelism in distributed simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 15, 2 (January 1985), pp. 94-98.
 
60
Lomow, G., Cleary, J., Unger, B., and West, D. A performance study of Time Warp. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 50-55.
 
61
Loucks, W.M., and Preiss, B.R. The role of knowledge in distributed simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 9-16.
62
 
63
Lubachevsky, B.D. Scalability of the bounded lag distributed discrete event simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 100-107.
64
65
 
66
67
 
68
Merrifield, B.C., Richardson, S.B., and Roberts, J.B.G. Quantitative studies of discrete event simulation modelling of road traffic. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 188-193.
69
 
70
 
71
Nevison, C. Parallel simulation of manufacturing systems: Structural factors. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 17- 19.
72
 
73
Nicol, D.M. The cost of conservative synchronization in parallel discrete event simulations. Tech. Rep. 90-20, ICASE, June 1989.
 
74
Nicol, D.M. Performance bounds on parallel self-initiating discreteevent simulations. Tech. Rep. 90- 21, ICASE, March 1990.
 
75
 
76
Peacock, J.K., Wong, J.W., and Manning, E.G. Distributed simula- tion using a network of processors. Comput. Networks 3, 1 (February 1979), 44-56.
 
77
Preiss, B.R. The Yaddes distributed discrete event simulation specification language and execution environments. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference orz Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989) pp. 139- 144.
 
78
Presley, M., Ebling, M., Wieland, F., and Jefferson, D.R. Benchmarking the Time Warp Operating System with a computer network simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 8-13.
 
79
Puccio, J. A causal discipline for value return under Time Warp. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 171-176.
 
80
 
81
Reiher, P.L. private communication, February 1990.
 
82
Reiher, P.L., Fujimoto, R.M., Bellenot, S., and Jefferson, D.R. Cancellation strategies in optimistic execution systems. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, 1 (January 1990), pp. 112-121.
83
84
85
 
86
87
 
88
Sokol, L.M., Briscoe, D.P., and Wieland. A.P. MTW: a strategy for scheduling discrete simulation events for concurrent execution. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 19, 3 (July 1988), pp. 34-42.
 
89
Sokol, L.M., and Stucky, B.K. MTW: experimental results for a constrained optimistic scheduling paradigm. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 22, I (January 1990), pp. 169- 173.
90
 
91
Su, W.K., and Seitz, C.L. Variants of the Chandy-Misra-Bryant distributed discrete-event simulation algorithm. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 38-43.
 
92
Tinker, P.A., and Agre, J.R. Object creation, messaging, and state manipulation in an object oriented Time Warp system. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 79-84.
93
 
94
Wagner, D.B., Lazowska, E.D., and Bershad, B.N. Techniques for efficient shared-memeory parallel simulation. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 29-37.
 
95
West, D. Optimizing Time Warp: Lazy rollback and lazy re-evaluation. M.S. thesis, University of Calgary, January 1988.
 
96
Wieland, F., Hawley, L., Feinberg, A., DiLorento, M., Blume, L., Reiher, P., Beckman, B., Hontalas, P., Bellenot, S., and Jefferson, D.R. Distributed combat simulation and Time Warp: The model and its performance. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 14-20.
 
97
Wieland, F., and Jefferson, D.R. Case studies in serial and parallel simulation. In Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Parallel Processing, vol. 3, (August 1989), pp. 255-258.
 
98
Zhang, G., and Zeigler, B.P. DEVS- Scheme supported mapping of hierarchical models onto multiple processor systems. In Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation 21, 2 (March 1989), pp. 64-69.

CITED BY  360


REVIEWS

"Yi-Bing Lin : Reviewer"

Recently there has been a great deal of interest in parallel discrete event simulation, and several survey articles on the execution of simulation models on parallel processors have appeared [1-4]. Fujimoto's survey covers most of the material  more...


"Paul Adrian Luker : Reviewer"

The devotion of this issue of Communications of the ACM to simulation attests to the increasing importance of simulation as a tool to help understand and manage our increasingly complex world. This special is  more...

Collaborative Colleagues:
Richard M. Fujimoto: colleagues