From: laiymani <laiymani@MacBook-Pro-de-laiymani.local>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:28:16 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: Merge branch 'master' of ssh://info.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/hpcc2014
X-Git-Tag: hpcc2014_submission~36
X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/hpcc2014.git/commitdiff_plain/85bdede0dce3662616d21678eafc402be648bb87?ds=sidebyside;hp=-c

Merge branch 'master' of ssh://info.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/hpcc2014
---

85bdede0dce3662616d21678eafc402be648bb87
diff --combined hpcc.tex
index 31a6964,cb85b00..aeafb67
--- a/hpcc.tex
+++ b/hpcc.tex
@@@ -483,7 -483,7 +483,7 @@@ The ratio between the simulated executi
  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 +508,8 @@@ $\text{62}^\text{3} = \text{\np{238328}
  
  \begin{table}[!t]
    \centering
-   \caption{2 clusters, each with 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 +657,10 @@@ Note that the program was run with the 
  
  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