151: GreyBeards talk AI (ML) performance benchmarks with David Kanter, Exec. Dir. MLCommons

Ray’s known David Kanter (@TheKanter), Executive Director, MLCommons, for quite awhile now and has been reporting on MLCommons Mlperf AI benchmark results for even longer. MLCommons releases new benchmark results each quarter and this last week they released new Data Center Training (v3.0) and new Tiny Inferencing (v1.1) results. So, the GreyBeards thought it was time to get a view of what’s new in AI benchmarking and what’s coming later this year.

David’s been around the startup community in the Bay Area for a while now and sort of started at MLPerf early on as a technical guru working on submissions and other stuff and worked his way up to being the Executive Director/CEO. The big news this week from MLCommons is that they have introduced a new training benchmark and updated an older one. The new one simulates training GPT-3 and they also updated their Recommendation Engine benchmark. Listen to the podcast to learn more.

MLCommons is an industry association focused on supplying recreatable, verifiable benchmarks for machine learning (ML) and AI which they call MLperf benchmarks. Their benchmark suite includes a number of different categories such as data center training, HPC training, data center inferencing, edge inferencing, mobile inferencing and finally tiny (IoT device) inferencing. David likes to say MLperf benchmarks range from systems consuming Megawatts (HPC, literally a supercomputer) to Microwatts (Tiny) solutions.

The challenge holding AI benchmarking back early on was a few industry players had done their own thing but there was way to compare one to another. MLcommons was born out of that chaos, and sought to create a benchmarking regimen that any industry player could use to submit AI work activity and would allow customers to compare their solution to any other submission on a representative sample of ML model training and inferencing activity

MLCommons has both an Open and Closed class of submissions. For the Closed class, submissions have a very strict criteria for submission. These include known open source AI models and data, accuracy metrics that training and inferencing need to hit, and reporting a standard set of metrics information for the benchmark. All of which need to be done in order to create a repeatable and verifiable submission.

Their Open class is a way for any industry participant to submit whatever model they would like, to whatever accuracy level they want, and it’s typically used to benchmark new hardware, software or AI models.

As mentioned above MLcommons training benchmarks use accuracy specification that must be achieved to have a valid submission. Benchmarks also have to be run 3 times. All submissions list hardware (CPU and Accelerators) and software (AI framework). And these could range from 0 accelerators (e.g. CPU only with no GPUs) to 1000’s of GPUs.

The new GPT-3 model is a very complex AI model, that seemed until yesterday, unlikely to ever be benchmarked. But apparently the developers at MLCommons (and their industry partners) have been working on this for some time now. In this round of results there were 3 cloud submissions and 4 on prem submissions for GPT-3 training.

GPT-3, -3.5 & -4 are all OpenAI solutions which power their ChatGPT text transformer Large Language Model (LLM). GPT-3 has 175B parameters and was trained on TBs of data covering web crawls, book crawls, official documentation, code, etc. OpenAI said, at GPT-3 announcement, it took over $10M and months to train.

MLcommons GPT-3 benchmark is not a full training run of GPT-3 but uses a training checkpoint, trained on a subset of data used for the original GPT-3 training, Checkpoints are used for long running jobs (training sessions, weather simulations, fusion energy simulations, etc) and copy all internal state of a job/system while its running (ok, quiesced) at some interval (say every 8hrs, 24 hrs, 48hrs, etc), so that in case of a failure, one could just restart the activity from the last checkpoint rather than the beginning.

MLCommons GPT-3 checkpoint has been trained on a 10B token data set. The benchmark starts with loading this checkpoint and trains on an even smaller subset of the data for GPT-3 and trains to achieve the accuracy baseline.

Accuracy for text transformers is not as simple as other models (correct image classification, object identification, etc.) and uses “perplexity”. Hugging Face defines perplexity as “the exponentiated average negative log-likelihood of a sequence.”

The 4 on-premises submissions for GPT-3 using 45 minutes (768 NVIDIA H100 GPUs) to 442 minutes (64 Habana Guadi2 GPUS). The 3 cloud submissions all used NVIDIA H100 GPUs and ranged from 768 (@47 minutes to train) to 3584 GPUs (@11 min. to train).

Aside from DataCenter training, MLcommons also released a new round of Tiny (IoT) inferencing benchmarks. These generally use smaller ARM processors and no GPUs with much smaller AI models such as Keyword spotting (“Hey SIRI”), visual wake words (door opening), image classification, etc.

We ended our discussion with me asking David why there was no storage oriented MLcommons benchmark. David said creating a storage benchmarks for AI is much different than inferencing or training benchmarks. But MLCommons has taken this on and now have a storage MLcommons series of benchmarks for storage that uses emulated accelerators.

At the moment, anyone with a storage system can submit MLcommons storage benchmark. After some time, MLcommons will only allow submissions from member companies but early on it’s open for all.

For their storage benchmarks, rather than using accuracy as benchmark criteria they use keeping (emulated) accelerators X% busy. This way storage support of the MLops activities can be isolated from the training and inferencing.

The GreyBeards eagerly anticipate the first round of MLcommons storage benchmark results. Hopefully coming out later this year.

150: GreyBeard talks Zero Trust with Jonathan Halstuch, Co-founder & CTO, RackTop Systems

Sponsored By:

This is another in our series of sponsored podcasts with Jonathan Halstuch (@JAHGT), Co-Founder and CTO of RackTop Systems. You can hear more in Episode #147 on RansomWare protection and Episode #145 on proactive NAS security.

Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) has been touted as the next level of security for a while now. As such, it spans all of IT infrastructure. But from a storage perspective, it’s all about the latest NFS and SMB protocols together with an extreme level of security awareness that infuses storage systems.

RackTop has, from the git go, always focused on secure storage. ZTA with RackTop, adds on top of protocol logins an understanding of what normal IO looks like for apps, users, & admins and makes sure IO doesn’t deviate from what it should be. We discussed some of this in Episode #145, but this podcast provides even more detail. Listen to the podcast to learn more.

ZTA starts by requiring all participants in an IT infrastructure transaction to mutually authenticate one another. In modern storage protocols this is done via protocol logins. Besides logins, ZTA can establish different timeouts to tell servers and clients when to re-authenticate.

Furthermore, ZTA doesn’t just authenticate user/app/admin identity, it can also require that clients access storage only from authorized locations. That is, a client’s location on the network and in servers is also authenticated and when changed, triggers a system response. .

Also, with ZTA, PBAC/ABAC (policy/attribute based access controls) can be used to associate different files with different security policies. Above we talked about authentication timeouts and location requirements but PBAC/ABAC can also specify different authentication methods that need to be used.

RackTop systems does all of that and more. But where RackTop really differs from most other storage is that it support two modes of operation an observation mode and an enforcement mode. During observation mode, the system observes all the IO a client performs to characterizes its IO history.

Even during observation mode, RackTop has been factory pre-trained with what bad actor IO has looked like in the past. This includes all known ransomware IO, unusual user IO, unusual admin IO, etc. During observation mode, if it detects any of this bad actor IO, it will flagg and report it. For example, admins performing high read/write IO to multiple files will be detected as abnormal, flagged and reported.

But after some time in observation mode, admins can change RackTop into enforcement mode. At this point, the system understands what normal client IO looks like and if anything abnormal occurs, the system detects, flags and reports it.

RackTop customers have many options as to what the system will do when abnormal IO is detected. This can range from completely shutting down client IO to just reporting and logging it.

Jonathan mentioned that RackTop is widely installed in multi-level security enviroments. For example, in many government agencies, it’s not unusual to have top secret, secret, and unclassified information, each with their own PBAC/ABAC enforcement criteria.

RackTop has a long history of supporting storage for these extreme security environments. As such, customers should be well assured that their data can be as secured as any data in national government agencies.

Jonathan Halstuch, Co-Founder & CTO RackTop Systems

onathan Halstuch is the Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of RackTop Systems. He holds a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering from Georgia Tech as well as a master’s degree in engineering and technology management from George Washington University.

With over 20-years of experience as an engineer, technologist, and manager for the federal government he provides organizations the most efficient and secure data management solutions to accelerate operations while reducing the burden on admins, users, and executives.

148: GreyBeards talk software defined infrastructure with Anthony Cinelli and Brian Dean, Dell PowerFlex

Sponsored By:

This is one of a series of podcasts the GreyBeards are doing with Dell PowerFlex software defined infrastructure. Today, we talked with Anthony Cinelli, Sr. Director Dell Technologies and Brian Dean, Technical Marketing for PowerFlex. We have talked with Brian before but this is the first time we’ve met Anthony. They were both very knowledgeable about PowerFlex and the challenges large enterprises have today with their storage environments.

The key to PowerFlex’s software defined solution is its extreme flexibility, which comes mainly from its architecture which offers scale-out deployment options ranging from HCI solutions to a fully disaggregated compute-storage environment, in seemingly any combination (see technical resources for more info). With this sophistication, PowerFlex can help consolidate enterprise storage across just about any environment from virtualized workloads, to standalone databases, big data analytics, as well as containerized environments and of course, the cloud. Listen to the podcast to learn more.

To support this extreme flexibility, PowerFlex uses both client and storage software that can be configured together on a server (HCI) or apart, across compute and storage nodes to offer block storage. PowerFlex client software runs on any modern bare-metal or virtualized environment.

Anthony mentioned that one common problem to enterprises today is storage sprawl. Most large customers have an IT environment with sizable hypervisor based workloads, a dedicated database workload, a big data/analytics workload, a modern container based workload stack, an AI/ML/DL workload and more often than not, a vertical specific workload.

Each workload usually has their own storage system. And the problem with 4-7 different storage systems is cost, e.g., cost of underutilized storage. Typical to these environments, each storage system could be used at say, 60% utilization on average, but this will vary a lot between silos, leading to stranded capacity.

The main reason customers haven’t consolidated yet is because each silo has different performance characteristics. As a result, they end up purchasing excess capacity which increases cost and complexity, as a standard part of doing business.

To consolidate storage across these disparate environments requires a no-holds barred approach to IO performance, second to none, which PowerFlex can deliver. The secret to to its high levels of IO performance is RAID 10, deployed across a scale-out cluster. And PowerFlex clusters can range from 4 to 1000 or more nodes.

RAIID 10 mirrors data and spreads mirrored data across all drives and servers in a cluster or some subset. As a result, as you add storage nodes, IO performance scales up, almost linearly.

Yes, there can be other bottlenecks in clusters like this, most often networking, but with PowerFlex storage, IO need not be one of them. Anthony mentioned that PowerFlex will perform as fast as your infrastructure will support. So if your environment has 25 Gig Ethernet, it will perform IO at that speed, if you use 100 Gig Ethernet, it will perform at that speed.

In addition, PowerFlex offers automated LifeCycle Management (LCM), which can make having a 1000 node PowerFlex cluster almost as easy as a 10 node cluster. However to make use this automated LCM, one must run its storage server software on Dell PowerEdge servers.

Brian said adding or decommissioning PowerFlex nodes is a painless process. Because data is always mirrored, customers can remove any node, at any time and PowerFlex will automatically rebuild data across other nodes and drives. When you add nodes, those drives become immediately available to support more IO activity. Another item to note, because of RAID 10, PowerFlex mirror rebuilds happen very fast, as just about every other drive and node in the cluster (or subset) participates in the rebuild process.

PowerFlex supports Storage Pools. This partitions PowerFlex storage nodes and devices into multiple pools of storage used to host volume IO and data Storage pools can be used to segregate higher performing storage nodes from lower performing ones so that some volumes can exclusively reside on higher (or lower) performing hardware.

Although customers can configure PowerFlex to use all nodes and drives in a system or storage pool for volume data mirroring, PowerFlex offers other data placement alternatives to support high availability.

PowerFlex supports Protection Domains which are subsets or collections of storage servers and drives in a cluster where volume data will reside. This will allow one protection domain to go down while others continue to operate. Realize that because volume data is mirrored across all devices in a protection domain, it will take lots of nodes or devices to go down before a protection domain is out of action.

PowerFlex also uses Fault Sets, which are a collection of storage servers and their devices within a Protection Domain, that will contain one half of a volume’s data mirror. PowerFlex will insure that a primary and its mirror copy of volume’s data will not both reside on the same fault set. A fault set could be a rack of servers, multiple racks, all PowerFlex storage servers in an AZ, etc. With fault sets, customer data will always reside across a minimum of two fault sets, and if any one goes down, data is still available.

PowerFlex also operates in the cloud. In this case, customers bring their own PowerFlex software and deploy it over cloud compute and storage.

Brian mentioned that anything PowerFlex can do such as reconfiguring servers, can be done through RESTful/API calls. This can be particularly useful in cloud deployments as above, if customers want to scale up or down IO performance automatically.

Besides block services, PowerFlex also offers NFS/CIFS-SMB native file services using a File Node Controller. This frontends PowerFlex storage nodes to support customer NFS/SMB file access to PowerFlex data.

Anthony Cinelli, Sr. Director Global PowerFlex Software Defined & MultiCloud Solutions

Anthony Cinelli is a key leader for Dell Technologies helping drive the success of our software defined and multicloud solutions portfolio across the customer landscape. Anthony has been with Dell for 13 years and in that time has helped launch our HCI and Software Defined businesses from startup to the multi-billion dollar lines of business they now represent for Dell.

Anthony has a wealth of experience helping some of the largest organizations in the world achieve their IT transformation and multicloud initiatives through the use of software defined technologies.

Brian Dean, Dell PowerFlex Technical Marketing

Brian is a 16+ year veteran of the technology industry, and before that spent a decade in higher education. Brian has worked at EMC and Dell for 7 years, first as Solutions Architect and then as TME, focusing primarily on PowerFlex and software-defined storage ecosystems.

Prior to joining EMC, Brian was on the consumer/buyer side of large storage systems, directing operations for two Internet-based digital video surveillance startups.

When he’s not wrestling with computer systems, he might be found hiking and climbing in the mountains of North Carolina.

147: GreyBeards talk ransomware protection with Jonathan Halstuch, Co-Founder and CTO, RackTop Systems

Sponsored By:

This is another in our series of sponsored podcasts with Jonathan Halstuch (@JAHGT), Co-Founder and CTO of RackTop Systems. You can hear more in Episode 145.

We asked Jonathan what was wrong with ransomware protection today. Jonathan started by mentioning that bad actors had been present, on average, 277 days in an environment before being detected. That much dwell time, means they could have easily corrupted most backups and snapshots, stolen copies of all your most of sensitive/proprietary data, and of course, encrypted all your storage.

Backup ransomware protection works ok if dwell time is a couple of days or even a week, but not multiple months or longer.. The only real solution to this level of ransomware sophistication is real time monitoring of IO, looking for illegal activity. Listen to the podcast to learn more

Often, any data corruption, when discovered, is just notification to an unsuspecting IT organization that they have been compromised and lost control over their systems. Sort of like having a thief ring the door bell to tell you they stole all your stuff after the fact.

The only real solution to data breaches and ransomware attacks with significant dwell time, that protects both your data and your reputation is something like RackTop Systems and their BrickStore SP storage system. BrickStore offers an ongoing, in real-time, active defense against ransomware that’s embedded in your data storage, that’s continuously looking for bad actors and their activities during IO activity, all day, every day. 

When BrickStor detects ransomware in progress it shuts it down, by halting any further access to that user/apllication and snapshots the data before corruption, to immutable snapshots. That way admins have a good copy of data.

In addition, RackTop BrickStor SP supplies run book like recovery procedures that tell IT how to retrieve good data from snapshots, without wasting valuable time searching for the “last good backup”, which could be months old.

I asked whether data at rest encryption could offer any help. Jonathan said data encryption can thwart only some types of attacks. But it’s not that useful for ransomware, as bad actors who infiltrate your system masquerade as valid users/admins and by doing so, gain access to decrypted data.  

RackTop Systems uses AI in its labs to create ransomware “assesors”, automated routines embedded in their storage data path, which continuously execute looking for bad actor IO patterns. It’s these assessors that provide the first line of defense against ransomware.

In addition to assessors, Racktop Systems supplies many reports which depict data access permissions, user/admin access permissions, data being accessed, etc. All of which help IT and security teams better understand how data is being used and provide the visibility needed to help support better cyber security

When ransomware is detected, RackTop BrickStor offers a number of different notification features that range from web-hooks and slack channels to email notices and just about everything in between to notify IT and security teams that a breach is occurring and where.

RackTop Systems BrickStor SP is available in many deployments. One new option, from HPE, uses their block storage to present LUNs to BrickStor SP. Jonathan mentioned that other enterprise class block storage vendors are starting to use BrickStor SP to supply secure NAS services for their customers as well.

Jonathan mentioned that RackTop attended the HIMSS conference in Chicago last week and will be attending many others throughout the year. So check them out at a conference near you if you get a chance.

Jonathan Halstuch, Co-Founder & CTO RackTop Systems

Jonathan Halstuch is the Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of RackTop Systems. He holds a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering from Georgia Tech as well as a master’s degree in engineering and technology management from George Washington University.

With over 20-years of experience as an engineer, technologist, and manager for the federal government he provides organizations the most efficient and secure data management solutions to accelerate operations while reducing the burden on admins, users, and executives.