跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.36370 · v1

IOSage: Detecting HPC I/O Bottleneck Patterns to Guide LLM Recommendations

首次提交 2026-10-27 06:35
版本更新 2026-10-27 06:35
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

HPC applications often leave much of their parallel file system's bandwidth unused, and turning their Darshan logs into concrete I/O fixes still requires a scarce I/O expert. Rule-based tools flag counters against thresholds set by experts, and in tools built on large language models (LLMs), such as ION and IOAgent, the LLM decides which bottlenecks a log contains. We present IOSage, in which a classifier trained on many labeled logs, not the LLM, makes that decision, since a single log gives an LLM no baseline for what is abnormal. The LLM receives the I/O bottleneck patterns the classifier detects, the job's configuration files, per-file Darshan evidence, and for each pattern a card built from benchmark training runs, and writes recommended changes. Applied by hand and measured in repeated paired runs, the changes IOSage names speed up median total wall time 4.38x for an openPMD kernel (4.02x on a second storage tier) and 1.42x for hourly WRF restarts. For 5 of the 6 application scenarios with a helpful change, IOSage with Claude Sonnet 4 names it, including the change for 10-minute WRF restarts (up to 1.93x faster); with GPT-4o and Llama 3.1 as well, the classifier and cards name more helpful changes than the LLM alone. On 78 benchmark test runs without a pattern, the LLM deciding alone proposes changes for 64; with the classifier, for 9. The classifier reaches 0.929 Micro-F1 on 488 labeled benchmark test runs (0.916 as the gate; 0.832 on the 158 from configurations and jobs outside training), above Drishti's rules, WisIO, and IOAgent's pipeline without its literature retrieval. On TraceBench's nine expert-labeled traces from production systems, it has the highest precision of the tools compared (0.82), with 2 false positives against 12 for the keyword-mapped LLM diagnoses shipped with TraceBench and 5 for Drishti, on the five issue labels that match registered patterns.

作者备注:13 pages, 5 figures, 4 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-27 06:35 · 最新观测版本

IOSage: Detecting HPC I/O Bottleneck Patterns to Guide LLM Recommendations

HPC applications often leave much of their parallel file system's bandwidth unused, and turning their Darshan logs into concrete I/O fixes still requires a scarce I/O expert. Rule-based tools flag counters against thresholds set by experts, and in tools built on large language models (LLMs), such as ION and IOAgent, the LLM decides which bottlenecks a log contains. We present IOSage, in which a classifier trained on many labeled logs, not the LLM, makes that decision, since a single log gives an LLM no baseline for what is abnormal. The LLM receives the I/O bottleneck patterns the classifier detects, the job's configuration files, per-file Darshan evidence, and for each pattern a card built from benchmark training runs, and writes recommended changes. Applied by hand and measured in repeated paired runs, the changes IOSage names speed up median total wall time 4.38x for an openPMD kernel (4.02x on a second storage tier) and 1.42x for hourly WRF restarts. For 5 of the 6 application scenarios with a helpful change, IOSage with Claude Sonnet 4 names it, including the change for 10-minute WRF restarts (up to 1.93x faster); with GPT-4o and Llama 3.1 as well, the classifier and cards name more helpful changes than the LLM alone. On 78 benchmark test runs without a pattern, the LLM deciding alone proposes changes for 64; with the classifier, for 9. The classifier reaches 0.929 Micro-F1 on 488 labeled benchmark test runs (0.916 as the gate; 0.832 on the 158 from configurations and jobs outside training), above Drishti's rules, WisIO, and IOAgent's pipeline without its literature retrieval. On TraceBench's nine expert-labeled traces from production systems, it has the highest precision of the tools compared (0.82), with 2 false positives against 12 for the keyword-mapped LLM diagnoses shipped with TraceBench and 5 for Drishti, on the five issue labels that match registered patterns.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗