Correction and re-formatting.

diff --git a/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.pdf b/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.pdf
index eadf4fe48d47ebcf23c5b984d6a440c7fe84b4ab..e6db0525f6f55c8d401ba5e2b0e6f8cf4cdf30e3 100644 (file)
Binary files a/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.pdf and b/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.pdf differ

diff --git a/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.tex b/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.tex
index dc4527dbd2f98a581509fc829f3e27b6f4282a89..e363475cf1087b10276b489ee4114c4c9d6685db 100644 (file)
--- a/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.tex
+++ b/pdsec2010/pdsec2010.tex
@@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ environment is fault tolerant and tasks save checkpoints on their
 neighbors, it is more efficient to save on near nodes than on far
 ones. In the synchronous model, both heterogeneity and locality must
 be taken into account in a balanced way. In the asynchronous model,
 neighbors, it is more efficient to save on near nodes than on far
 ones. In the synchronous model, both heterogeneity and locality must
 be taken into account in a balanced way. In the asynchronous model,

-since no synchronizations occurs, the heterogeneity issue is less
+since no synchronization occurs, the heterogeneity issue is less

 important.
 
 
 important.
 
 


@@ -1424,7 +1424,7 @@ in comparison to the version without mapping.
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class E of the CG 
     application on Arc1.1 using 64 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph1E}
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class E of the CG 
     application on Arc1.1 using 64 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph1E}

-  \vspace*{-0.3cm}
+  \vspace*{-0.4cm}

 \end{table}
 
 %\vspace{-0.5cm}
 \end{table}
 
 %\vspace{-0.5cm}


@@ -1447,7 +1447,7 @@ in comparison to the version without mapping.
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class F of the CG
     application on Arc1.2 using 128 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph1F}
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class F of the CG
     application on Arc1.2 using 128 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph1F}

-  \vspace*{-0.3cm}
+  \vspace*{-0.4cm}

 \end{table}
 
 At first, we can see that the Simple Mapping algorithm, though it is
 \end{table}
 
 At first, we can see that the Simple Mapping algorithm, though it is


@@ -1512,7 +1512,7 @@ mapping.
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class E of the CG
     application on Arc2.1 using 64 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph2E}
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class E of the CG
     application on Arc2.1 using 64 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph2E}

-  \vspace*{-0.3cm}
+  \vspace*{-0.4cm}

 \end{table}
 
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
 \end{table}
 
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}


@@ -1533,7 +1533,7 @@ mapping.
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class F of the CG
     application on Arc2.2 using 128 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph2F}
   \caption{Gains in time of the execution of the class F of the CG
     application on Arc2.2 using 128 nodes}
   \label{tab:exph2F}

-  \vspace*{-0.3cm}
+  \vspace*{-0.4cm}

 \end{table}
 
 To begin with, these experiments confirm that a mapping algorithm is
 \end{table}
 
 To begin with, these experiments confirm that a mapping algorithm is


@@ -1746,7 +1746,7 @@ a whole cluster fails, as we save on neighbors (which are
 in general on the same cluster for communication efficiency reasons),
 an important part of the application is lost and we cannot restart
 this part; so the whole application fails. A trade-off should be done
 in general on the same cluster for communication efficiency reasons),
 an important part of the application is lost and we cannot restart
 this part; so the whole application fails. A trade-off should be done

-by having some saving nodes in external clusters.
+by having some saving nodes in external clusters.\\

 
 % \subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
 
 
 % \subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}