From: David Laiymani <laiymani@MacBook-Pro-de-laiymani.local>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:40:57 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: corrections
X-Git-Tag: hpcc2014_submission~10
X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/hpcc2014.git/commitdiff_plain/28e01316fd4048f6765d2771d36cd4565cba5421?ds=inline

corrections
---

diff --git a/hpcc.tex b/hpcc.tex
index 4a056f4..04c5403 100644
--- a/hpcc.tex
+++ b/hpcc.tex
@@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}}$ 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
@@ -679,8 +679,8 @@ 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