X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/hpcc2014.git/blobdiff_plain/0ee56103583961f09e5ddf8299bfc1641416eb02..abc7ee50fcd018c2c756f80d084b182a712b245e:/hpcc.tex

diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex
index 15dd9d7..622a2f0 100644
--- a/hpcc.tex
+++ b/hpcc.tex
@@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ The ratio between the simulated execution time of synchronous GMRES algorithm
 compared to the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm ($t_\text{GMRES} / t_\text{Multisplitting}$) is defined as the \emph{relative gain}. So,
 our objective running the algorithm in SimGrid is to obtain a relative gain greater than 1.
 A priori, obtaining a relative gain greater than 1 would be difficult in a local
-area network configuration where the synchronous mode will take advantage on the
+area network configuration where the synchronous GMRES method will take advantage on the
 rapid exchange of information on such high-speed links. Thus, the methodology
 adopted was to launch the application on a clustered network. In this
 configuration, degrading the inter-cluster network performance will penalize the
@@ -508,7 +508,8 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} =
 
 \begin{table}[!t]
   \centering
-  \caption{Relative gain between the GMRES and the multisplitting algorithms wih for different configurations with 2 clusters, each one composed of 50 nodes.}
+  \caption{Relative gain  of the multisplitting algorithm compared  to GMRES for
+    different configurations with 2 clusters, each one composed of 50 nodes.}
   \label{tab.cluster.2x50}
 
   \begin{mytable}{5}
@@ -656,10 +657,10 @@ Note that the program was run with the following parameters:
 
 After analyzing the outputs, generally, for the two clusters including one hundred hosts configuration (Tables~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50}), some combinations of parameters affecting
 the results have given a relative gain more than 2.5, showing the effectiveness of the
-asynchronous performance compared to the synchronous mode.
+asynchronous multiplsitting  compared to GMRES with two distant clusters.
 
 With these settings, Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} shows
-that after a deterioration of inter cluster network with a bandwidth of \np[Mbit/s]{5} and a latency in order of one hundredth of millisecond and a processor power
+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
 stable even we vary the residual error precision from \np{E-5} to \np{E-9}. By
@@ -706,17 +707,18 @@ of the cluster and network specifications permitting to save time in
 executing the algorithm in asynchronous mode.
 \end{enumerate}
 Our results have shown that in certain conditions, asynchronous mode is 
-speeder up to \np[\%]{40} than executing the algorithm in synchronous mode
+speeder up to \np[\%]{40} comparing to the synchronous GMRES method
 which is not negligible for solving complex practical problems with more 
 and more increasing size.
 
- Several studies have already addressed the performance execution time of 
+Several studies have already addressed the performance execution time of 
 this class of algorithm. The work presented in this paper has 
 demonstrated an original solution to optimize the use of a simulation 
 tool to run efficiently an iterative parallel algorithm in asynchronous 
 mode in a grid architecture. 
 
-\LZK{Perspectives???}
+For our futur works, we plan to extend our experimentations to larger scale platforms by increasing the number of computing cores and the number of clusters. 
+We will also have to increase the size of the input problem which will require the use of a more powerful simulation platform. At last, we expect to compare our simulation results to real execution results on real architectures in order to experimentally validate our study.
 
 \section*{Acknowledgment}