From: raphael couturier <couturie@extinction>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:08:05 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: suite
X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/GMRES2stage.git/commitdiff_plain/649421a46874291325940af659c9eb66d83411b4?ds=inline

suite
---

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index a4c9b26..f4dba97 100644
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -1051,6 +1051,24 @@ core. It can also  be observed that the difference between CGLS  and LSQR is not
 significant. Both can be good but it seems not possible to know in advance which
 one will be the best.
 
+Table~\ref{tab:05} show a strong scaling experiment with the exemple ex54 on the
+Curie  architecture. So  in  this case,  the  number of  unknownws  is fixed  to
+$204,919,225$ and the number of cores ranges from $512$ to $8192$ with the power
+of two.  The  threshold is fixed to $5e-5$ and only  the $mg$ preconditioner has
+been tested. Here  again we can see that TSIRM is  faster that FGMRES. Efficiecy
+of each algorithms is reported. It  can be noticed that FGMRES is more efficient
+than TSIRM except with $8,192$ cores and that its efficiency is greater that one
+whereas the  efficiency of TSIRM is  lower than one. Nevertheless,  the ratio of
+TSIRM  with any  version  of the  least-squares  method is  always faster.  With
+$8,192$ cores when the number of iterations is far more important for FGMRES, we
+can see that it is only slightly more important for TSIRM.
+
+In  Figure~\ref{fig:02}  we report  the  number  of  iterations per  second  for
+experiments  reported in  Table~\ref{tab:05}.  This Figure  highlights that  the
+number of iterations per  seconds is more of less the same  for FGMRES and TSIRM
+with a little advantage for FGMRES. It  can be explained by the fact that, as we
+have previously explained, that the iterations of the least-sqaure steps are not
+taken into account with TSIRM.
 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 \begin{center}