\end{mytable}
\end{table}
-\RC{Du coup la latence est toujours la même, pourquoi la mettre dans la table?}
+%\RC{Du coup la latence est toujours la même, pourquoi la mettre dans la table?}
%Then we have changed the network configuration using three clusters containing
%respectively 33, 33 and 34 hosts, or again by on hundred hosts for all the
\item Maximum numbers of outer and inner iterations;
\item Outer and inner precisions on the residual error;
\item Matrix size $N_x$, $N_y$ and $N_z$;
-\item Matrix diagonal value: $6$ (See Equation~(\ref{eq:03}));
-\item Matrix off-diagonal value: $-1$;
+\item Matrix diagonal value: $6$ (see Equation~(\ref{eq:03}));
+\item Matrix off-diagonal values: $-1$;
\item Communication mode: asynchronous.
\end{itemize}
With these settings, Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} shows
that after setting the bandwidth of the inter cluster network to \np[Mbit/s]{5} and a latency in order of one hundredth of millisecond and a processor power
of one GFlops, an efficiency of about \np[\%]{40} is
-obtained in asynchronous mode for a matrix size of 62 elements. It is noticed that the result remains
+obtained in asynchronous mode for a matrix size of $62^3$ elements. It is noticed that the result remains
stable even we vary the residual error precision from \np{E-5} to \np{E-9}. By
-increasing the matrix size up to 100 elements, it was necessary to increase the
+increasing the matrix size up to $100^3$ elements, it was necessary to increase the
CPU power of \np[\%]{50} to \np[GFlops]{1.5} to get the algorithm convergence and the same order of asynchronous mode efficiency. Maintaining such processor power but increasing network throughput inter cluster up to
\np[Mbit/s]{50}, the result of efficiency with a relative gain of 2.5 is obtained with
-high external precision of \np{E-11} for a matrix size from 110 to 150 side
+high external precision of \np{E-11} for a matrix size from $110^3$ to $150^3$ side
elements.
%For the 3 clusters architecture including a total of 100 hosts,
%(synchronous and asynchronous) is achieved with an inter cluster of
%\np[Mbit/s]{10} and a latency of \np[ms]{E-1}. To challenge an efficiency greater than 1.2 with a matrix %size of 100 points, it was necessary to degrade the
%inter cluster network bandwidth from 5 to \np[Mbit/s]{2}.
-\AG{Conclusion, on prend une plateforme pourrie pour avoir un bon ratio sync/async ???
- Quelle est la perte de perfs en faisant ça ?}
+%\AG{Conclusion, on prend une plateforme pourrie pour avoir un bon ratio sync/async ???
+ %Quelle est la perte de perfs en faisant ça ?}
%A last attempt was made for a configuration of three clusters but more powerful
%with 200 nodes in total. The convergence with a relative gain around 1.1 was
\item To test the combination of the cluster and network specifications permitting to execute an asynchronous algorithm faster than a synchronous one.
\end{enumerate}
-Our results have shown that with two distant clusters, the asynchronous multisplitting is faster to \np[\%]{40} compared to the synchronous GMRES method
+Our results have shown that with two distant clusters, the asynchronous multisplitting method is faster to \np[\%]{40} compared to the synchronous GMRES method
which is not negligible for solving complex practical problems with more
and more increasing size.
