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