Results 1 -
3 of
3
Parallel Implementation of Algorithms for Finding Connected Components in Graphs
, 1997
"... In this paper, we describe our implementation of several parallel graph algorithms for finding connected components. Our implementation, with virtual processing, is on a 16,384-processor MasPar MP-1 using the language MPL. We present extensive test data on our code. In our previous projects [21, 22, ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 22 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we describe our implementation of several parallel graph algorithms for finding connected components. Our implementation, with virtual processing, is on a 16,384-processor MasPar MP-1 using the language MPL. We present extensive test data on our code. In our previous projects [21, 22, 23], we reported the implementation of an extensible parallel graph algorithms library. We developed general implementation and fine-tuning techniques without expending too much effort on optimizing each individual routine. We also handled the issue of implementing virtual processing. In this paper, we describe several algorithms and fine-tuning techniques that we developed for the problem of finding connected components in parallel; many of the fine-tuning techniques are of general interest, and should be applicable to code for other problems. We present data on the execution time and memory usage of our various implementations.
Implementation of Parallel Graph Algorithms on a Massively Parallel SIMD Computer with Virtual Processing
, 1995
"... We describe our implementation of several PRAM graph algorithms on the massively parallel computer MasPar MP-1 with 16,384 processors. Our implementation incorporated virtual processing and we present extensive test data. In a previous project [13], we reported the implementation of a set of paralle ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 10 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We describe our implementation of several PRAM graph algorithms on the massively parallel computer MasPar MP-1 with 16,384 processors. Our implementation incorporated virtual processing and we present extensive test data. In a previous project [13], we reported the implementation of a set of parallel graph algorithms with the constraint that the maximum input size was restricted to be no more than the physical number of processors on the MasPar. The MasPar language MPL that we used for our code does not support virtual processing. In this paper, we describe a method of simulating virtual processors on the MasPar. We re-coded and fine-tuned our earlier parallel graph algorithms to incorporate the usage of virtual processors. Under the current implementation scheme, there is no limit on the number of virtual processors that one can use in the program as long as there is enough main memory to store all the data required during the computation. We also give two general optimization techniq...
Finding Connected Components in Graphs
, 1996
"... In this paper, we describe our implementation of several parallel graph algorithms for finding connected components. Our implementation, with virtual processing, is on a 16,384-processor MasPar MP-1 using the language MPL. We present extensive test data on our code. In our previous projects [21, 22, ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we describe our implementation of several parallel graph algorithms for finding connected components. Our implementation, with virtual processing, is on a 16,384-processor MasPar MP-1 using the language MPL. We present extensive test data on our code. In our previous projects [21, 22, 23], we reported the implementation of an extensible parallel graph algorithms library. We developed general implementation and ne-tuning techniques without expending too much e ort on optimizing each individual routine. We also handled the issue of implementing virtual processing. In this paper, we describe several algorithms and fine-tuning techniques that we developed for the problem of finding connected components in parallel; many of the fine-tuning techniques are of general interest, and should be applicable to code for other problems. We present data on the execution time and memory usage of our various implementations.

