X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/hpcc2014.git/blobdiff_plain/0bea9394eeb7dd6510ef86272dfe0aeeaf4cb4fc..b69bcefdfa54757425b8e8ffd4a807d02d1225c1:/hpcc.tex?ds=inline

diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex
index ab4fd27..306cf68 100644
--- a/hpcc.tex
+++ b/hpcc.tex
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ paper, we show  that it is interesting to use SimGrid  to simulate the behaviors
 of asynchronous  iterative algorithms. For that,  we compare the  behaviour of a
 synchronous  GMRES  algorithm  with  an  asynchronous  multisplitting  one  with
 simulations  which let us easily choose  some parameters.   Both  codes  are real  MPI
-codes ans simulations allow us to see when the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm can be more
+codes and simulations allow us to see when the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm can be more
 efficient than the GMRES one to solve a 3D Poisson problem.
 
 
@@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} =
     & 5         & 5         & 5         & 5         & 5         \\
     \hline
     latency (ms)
-    & 0.02      & 0.02      & 0.02      & 0.02      & 0.02      \\
+    & 20      &  20      & 20      & 20      & 20      \\
     \hline
     power (GFlops)
     & 1         & 1         & 1         & 1.5       & 1.5       \\
@@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} =
     & 50        & 50        & 50        & 50        & 50 \\ %       & 10        & 10 \\
     \hline
     latency (ms)
-    & 0.02      & 0.02      & 0.02      & 0.02      & 0.02 \\ %      & 0.03      & 0.01 \\
+    & 20      & 20      & 20      & 20      & 20 \\ %      & 0.03      & 0.01 \\
     \hline
     Power (GFlops)
     & 1.5       & 1.5       & 1.5       & 1.5       & 1.5 \\ %      & 1         & 1.5 \\
@@ -561,13 +561,15 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} =
   \end{mytable}
 \end{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
 %clusters. In the same way as above, a judicious choice of key parameters has
 %permitted to get the results in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x33} which shows the
 %relative gains greater than 1 with a matrix size from 62 to 100 elements.
 
-\CER{En accord avec RC, on a pour le moment enlevé les tableaux 2 et 3 sachant que les résultats obtenus sont limites. De même, on a enlevé aussi les deux dernières colonnes du tableau I en attendant une meilleure performance et une meilleure precision}
+%\CER{En accord avec RC, on a pour le moment enlevé les tableaux 2 et 3 sachant que les résultats obtenus sont limites. De même, on a enlevé aussi les deux dernières colonnes du tableau I en attendant une meilleure performance et une meilleure precision}
 %\begin{table}[!t]
 %  \centering
 %  \caption{3 clusters, each with 33 nodes}
@@ -634,8 +636,8 @@ Note that the program was run with the following parameters:
   \begin{itemize}
   \item 2 clusters of 50 hosts each;
   \item Processor unit power: \np[GFlops]{1} or \np[GFlops]{1.5};
-  \item Intra-cluster network bandwidth: \np[Gbit/s]{1.25} and latency: \np[$\mu$s]{0.05};
-  \item Inter-cluster network bandwidth: \np[Mbit/s]{5} or \np[Mbit/s]{50} and latency: \np[$\mu$s]{20};
+  \item Intra-cluster network bandwidth: \np[Gbit/s]{1.25} and latency: \np[$\mu$s]{50};
+  \item Inter-cluster network bandwidth: \np[Mbit/s]{5} or \np[Mbit/s]{50} and latency: \np[ms]{20};
   \end{itemize}
 \end{itemize}