X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/hpcc2014.git/blobdiff_plain/757a3d8174e2736033052c4acc64de277cd66e11..308ec74e08aa8f3eab55dce15deaaaa395012359:/hpcc.tex?ds=inline diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex index da2ec91..22fa047 100644 --- a/hpcc.tex +++ b/hpcc.tex @@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = \begin{table}[!t] \centering \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared to GMRES for - different configurations with 2 clusters, each one composed of 50 nodes.} + different configurations with 2 clusters, each one composed of 50 nodes. Latency = $20$ms} \label{tab.cluster.2x50} \begin{mytable}{5} @@ -516,14 +516,14 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = bandwidth (Mbit/s) & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 \\ \hline - latency (ms) - & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ - \hline + % latency (ms) + % & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ + %\hline power (GFlops) & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\ \hline size $(N)$ - & 62 & 62 & 62 & 100 & 100 \\ + & $62^3$ & $62^3$ & $62^3$ & $100^3$ & $100^3$ \\ \hline Precision & \np{E-5} & \np{E-8} & \np{E-9} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} \\ @@ -541,14 +541,14 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = bandwidth (Mbit/s) & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 \\ % & 10 & 10 \\ \hline - latency (ms) - & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ % & 0.03 & 0.01 \\ - \hline + %latency (ms) + %& 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 \\ \hline size $(N)$ - & 110 & 120 & 130 & 140 & 150 \\ % & 171 & 171 \\ + & $110^3$ & $120^3$ & $130^3$ & $140^3$ & $150^3$ \\ % & 171 & 171 \\ \hline Precision & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} & \np{E-11} \\ % & \np{E-5} & \np{E-5} \\ @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ to $\text{150}^\text{3} = \end{mytable} \end{table} -\RC{Du coup la latence est toujours la même, pourquoi la mettre dans la table?} +%\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 @@ -678,8 +678,8 @@ elements. %(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 @@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ tool to run efficiently an iterative parallel algorithm in asynchronous mode in a grid architecture. In future 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. Finally, we also plan to study other problems with the multisplitting method and other asynchronous iterative methods. +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 better experimentally validate our study. Finally, we also plan to study other problems with the multisplitting method and other asynchronous iterative methods. \section*{Acknowledgment}