Remove bad formating commands.

[hpcc2014.git] / hpcc.tex

diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex
index c45795887962cf8c86d1bc0255c3b7cf6c12cabd..b4d0be3ad292cfea90d833d2f00b5a11c91b4441 100644 (file)
--- a/hpcc.tex
+++ b/hpcc.tex
@@ -319,38 +319,19 @@
 
 
 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
 
 
 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

-\usepackage{ucs}
-%\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
-\usepackage{lmodern}
-\usepackage{color}
-%% Jolis entetes %%
-\usepackage[Glenn]{fncychap}
+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}

 %\usepackage{amsmath}
 %\usepackage{amsthm}
 %\usepackage{amsfonts}
 %\usepackage{graphicx}
 %\usepackage{xspace}
 %\usepackage{amsmath}
 %\usepackage{amsthm}
 %\usepackage{amsfonts}
 %\usepackage{graphicx}
 %\usepackage{xspace}

-% Definition des marges
-\usepackage{vmargin}
-\setpapersize[portrait]{A4}
-\usepackage[francais]{babel}
+\usepackage[american]{babel}

 % Extension pour les graphiques EPS
 %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
 \usepackage[pdftex,final]{graphicx}
 % Extension pour les liens intra-documents (tagged PDF)
 % et l'affichage correct des URL (commande \url{http://example.com})
 % Extension pour les graphiques EPS
 %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
 \usepackage[pdftex,final]{graphicx}
 % Extension pour les liens intra-documents (tagged PDF)
 % et l'affichage correct des URL (commande \url{http://example.com})

-\usepackage{hyperref}
-
-\ifCLASSINFOpdf
-   \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
-   \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.jpeg,.png}
-\else
-\fi
-
-
-
-% correct bad hyphenation here
-\hyphenation{op-tical net-works semi-conduc-tor}
+%\usepackage{hyperref}

 
 
 \begin{document}
 
 
 \begin{document}


@@ -363,9 +344,9 @@
 % author names and affiliations
 % use a multiple column layout for up to three different
 % affiliations
 % author names and affiliations
 % use a multiple column layout for up to three different
 % affiliations

-\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Raphaël Couturier and Arnaud Giersch and David Laiymani and Charles-Emile Ramamonjisoa}
+\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Raphaël Couturier and Arnaud Giersch and David Laiymani and Charles-Emile Ramamonjisoa}

 \IEEEauthorblockA{Femto-ST Institute - DISC Department\\
 \IEEEauthorblockA{Femto-ST Institute - DISC Department\\

-Université de Franche-Comté\\
+Université de Franche-Comté\\

 Belfort\\
 Email: raphael.couturier@univ-fcomte.fr}
 %\and
 Belfort\\
 Email: raphael.couturier@univ-fcomte.fr}
 %\and


@@ -417,23 +398,23 @@ The abstract goes here.
 
 \section{Introduction}
 
 
 \section{Introduction}
 

-Présenter un bref état de l'art sur la simulation d'algos parallèles. Présenter rapidement les algos itératifs asynchrones et leurs avantages. Parler de leurs inconvénients en particulier la difficulté de déploiement à grande échelle donc il serait bien de simuler. Dire qu'à notre connaissance il n'existe pas de simulation de ce type d'algo.
-Présenter les travaux et les résultats obtenus. Annoncer le plan.
+Présenter un bref état de l'art sur la simulation d'algos parallèles. Présenter rapidement les algos itératifs asynchrones et leurs avantages. Parler de leurs inconvénients en particulier la difficulté de déploiement à grande échelle donc il serait bien de simuler. Dire qu'à notre connaissance il n'existe pas de simulation de ce type d'algo.
+Présenter les travaux et les résultats obtenus. Annoncer le plan.

  
 \section{The asynchronous iteration model}
 
  
 \section{The asynchronous iteration model}
 

-Décrire le modèle asynchrone. Je m'en charge (DL)
+Décrire le modèle asynchrone. Je m'en charge (DL)

 
 \section{SimGrid}
 
 
 \section{SimGrid}
 

-Décrire SimGrid (Arnaud)
+Décrire SimGrid (Arnaud)

 
 \section{Simulation of the multi-splitting method}
 
 
 \section{Simulation of the multi-splitting method}
 

-Décrire le problème (algo) traité ainsi que le processus d'adaptation à SimGrid.
+Décrire le problème (algo) traité ainsi que le processus d'adaptation à SimGrid.

 
 \section{Experimental results}
 
 \section{Experimental results}

-{\raggedright
+

 When the ``real'' application runs in the simulation environment and produces
 the expected results, varying the input parameters and the program arguments
 allows us to compare outputs from the code execution. We have noticed from this
 When the ``real'' application runs in the simulation environment and produces
 the expected results, varying the input parameters and the program arguments
 allows us to compare outputs from the code execution. We have noticed from this


@@ -447,9 +428,7 @@ algorithm but also to get the main objective of the experimentation of the
 simulation in having an execution time in asynchronous less than in synchronous
 mode, in others words, in having a ``speedup'' less than 1 (Speedup = Execution
 time in synchronous mode / Execution time in asynchronous mode).
 simulation in having an execution time in asynchronous less than in synchronous
 mode, in others words, in having a ``speedup'' less than 1 (Speedup = Execution
 time in synchronous mode / Execution time in asynchronous mode).

-}

 
 

-{\raggedright

 A priori, obtaining a speedup less than 1 would be difficult in a local area
 network configuration where the synchronous mode will take advantage on the rapid
 exchange of information on such high-speed links. Thus, the methodology adopted
 A priori, obtaining a speedup less than 1 would be difficult in a local area
 network configuration where the synchronous mode will take advantage on the rapid
 exchange of information on such high-speed links. Thus, the methodology adopted


@@ -457,36 +436,25 @@ was to launch the application on clustered network. In this last configuration,
 degrading the inter-cluster network performance will "penalize" the synchronous
 mode allowing to get a speedup lower than 1. This action simulates the case of
 clusters linked with long distance network like Internet.
 degrading the inter-cluster network performance will "penalize" the synchronous
 mode allowing to get a speedup lower than 1. This action simulates the case of
 clusters linked with long distance network like Internet.

-}

 
 

-{\raggedright

 As a first step, the algorithm was run on a network consisting of two clusters
 containing fifty hosts each, totaling one hundred hosts. Various combinations of
 As a first step, the algorithm was run on a network consisting of two clusters
 containing fifty hosts each, totaling one hundred hosts. Various combinations of

-the above factors have providing the results shown in Table 1 with a matrix size
+the above factors have providing the results shown in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} with a matrix size

 ranging from Nx = Ny = Nz = 62 to 171 elements or from 62$^{3}$ = 238328 to
 171$^{3}$ = 5,211,000 entries.
 ranging from Nx = Ny = Nz = 62 to 171 elements or from 62$^{3}$ = 238328 to
 171$^{3}$ = 5,211,000 entries.

-}

 
 

-{\raggedright

 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
 clusters. In the same way as above, a judicious choice of key parameters has
 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
 clusters. In the same way as above, a judicious choice of key parameters has

-permitted to get the results in Table 2 which shows the speedups less than 1 with
+permitted to get the results in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x33} which shows the speedups less than 1 with

 a matrix size from 62 to 100 elements.
 a matrix size from 62 to 100 elements.

-}

 
 

-{\raggedright

 In a final step, results of an execution attempt to scale up the three clustered
 In a final step, results of an execution attempt to scale up the three clustered

-configuration but increasing by two hundreds hosts has been recorded in Table 3.
-}
+configuration but increasing by two hundreds hosts has been recorded in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x67}.

 
 

-{\raggedright

 Note that the program was run with the following parameters:
 Note that the program was run with the following parameters:

-}

 
 

-%{\raggedright
-\textbullet{} \textbf {SMPI parameters:}
-%}
+\paragraph*{SMPI parameters}

 
 \begin{itemize}
        \item HOSTFILE : Hosts file description.
 
 \begin{itemize}
        \item HOSTFILE : Hosts file description.


@@ -496,9 +464,7 @@ lat latency , ... ).
 \end{itemize}
 
 
 \end{itemize}
 
 

-%{\raggedright
-\textbullet{} \textbf {Arguments of the program:}
-%}
+\paragraph*{Arguments of the program}

 
 \begin{itemize}
        \item Description of the cluster architecture;
 
 \begin{itemize}
        \item Description of the cluster architecture;


@@ -509,34 +475,36 @@ lat latency , ... ).
        \item Execution Mode: synchronous or asynchronous.
 \end{itemize}
 
        \item Execution Mode: synchronous or asynchronous.
 \end{itemize}
 

-\textbf{Table 1}
-
-\textit{{\scriptsize 2 clusters X 50 nodes}}
-\includegraphics[width=209pt]{img-1.eps}
-
-\textbf{Table 2}
-
-\textit{{\scriptsize 3 clusters X 33 n\oe{}uds}}
-\includegraphics[width=209pt]{img-1.eps}
-\textbf{Table 3}
-
-\textit{{\scriptsize 3 clusters X 67 noeuds}}
-\includegraphics[width=128pt]{img-2.eps}
+\begin{table}
+  \centering
+  \caption{2 clusters X 50 nodes}
+  \label{tab.cluster.2x50}
+  \includegraphics[width=209pt]{img-1.eps}
+\end{table}
+
+\begin{table}
+  \centering
+  \caption{3 clusters X 33 n\oe{}uds}
+  \label{tab.cluster.3x33}
+  \includegraphics[width=209pt]{img-1.eps}
+\end{table}
+
+\begin{table}
+  \centering
+  \caption{3 clusters X 67 noeuds}
+  \label{tab.cluster.3x67}
+  \includegraphics[width=128pt]{img-2.eps}
+\end{table}
+
+\paragraph*{Interpretations and comments}

 
 

-{\raggedright
-\textbf{Interpretations and comments}
-}
-
-{\raggedright

 After analyzing the outputs, generally, for the configuration with two or three
 After analyzing the outputs, generally, for the configuration with two or three

-clusters including one hundred hosts (Tables 1 and 2), some combinations of the
+clusters including one hundred hosts (Tables~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} and~\ref{tab.cluster.3x33}), some combinations of the

 used parameters affecting the results have given a speedup less than 1, showing
 the effectiveness of the asynchronous performance compared to the synchronous
 mode.
 used parameters affecting the results have given a speedup less than 1, showing
 the effectiveness of the asynchronous performance compared to the synchronous
 mode.

-}

 
 

-{\raggedright
-In the case of a two clusters configuration, Table 1 shows that with a
+In the case of a two clusters configuration, Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} shows that with a

 deterioration of inter cluster network set with 5 Mbits/s of bandwidth, a latency
 in order of a hundredth of a millisecond and a system power of one GFlops, an
 efficiency of about 40\% in asynchronous mode is obtained for a matrix size of 62
 deterioration of inter cluster network set with 5 Mbits/s of bandwidth, a latency
 in order of a hundredth of a millisecond and a system power of one GFlops, an
 efficiency of about 40\% in asynchronous mode is obtained for a matrix size of 62


@@ -548,23 +516,18 @@ Maintaining such a system power but this time, increasing network throughput
 inter cluster up to 50 Mbits /s, the result of efficiency of about 40\% is
 obtained with high external  precision of E-11 for a matrix size from 110 to 150
 side elements .
 inter cluster up to 50 Mbits /s, the result of efficiency of about 40\% is
 obtained with high external  precision of E-11 for a matrix size from 110 to 150
 side elements .

-}

 
 

-{\raggedright
-For the 3 clusters architecture including a total of 100 hosts, Table 2 shows
+For the 3 clusters architecture including a total of 100 hosts, Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x33} shows

 that it was difficult to have a combination which gives an efficiency of
 asynchronous below 80 \%. Indeed, for a matrix size of 62 elements, equality
 between the performance of the two modes (synchronous and asynchronous) is
 achieved with an inter cluster of 10 Mbits/s and a latency of E- 01 ms. To
 challenge an efficiency by 78\% with a matrix size of 100 points, it was
 necessary to degrade the inter cluster network bandwidth from 5 to 2 Mbit/s.
 that it was difficult to have a combination which gives an efficiency of
 asynchronous below 80 \%. Indeed, for a matrix size of 62 elements, equality
 between the performance of the two modes (synchronous and asynchronous) is
 achieved with an inter cluster of 10 Mbits/s and a latency of E- 01 ms. To
 challenge an efficiency by 78\% with a matrix size of 100 points, it was
 necessary to degrade the inter cluster network bandwidth from 5 to 2 Mbit/s.

-}

 
 

-{\raggedright

 A last attempt was made for a configuration of three clusters but more power
 with 200 nodes in total. The convergence with a speedup of 90 \% was obtained
 A last attempt was made for a configuration of three clusters but more power
 with 200 nodes in total. The convergence with a speedup of 90 \% was obtained

-with a bandwidth of 1 Mbits/s as shown in Table 3.
-}
+with a bandwidth of 1 Mbits/s as shown in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x67}.

 
 \section{Conclusion}
 
 
 \section{Conclusion}