+\subsubsection{The \besteffort{} strategy with the load initially on only one
+ node}
+
+Before looking at the different variations, we will first show that the plain
+\besteffort{} strategy is valuable, and may be as good as the \makhoul{}
+strategy. On the graphs from the figure~\ref{fig.results1}, these strategies
+(with virtual load feature) are respectively labeled ``b'' and ``a''.
+
+We can see that the relative performance of these strategies is mainly
+influenced by the application topology. It is for the line topology that the
+difference is the more important. In this case, the \besteffort{} strategy is
+nearly twice as fast as the \makhoul{} strategy. This can be explained by the
+fact that the \besteffort{} strategy tries to distribute the load faitly between
+all the nodes and with the line topology, it is easy to load balance the load
+fairly.
+
+On the contrary, for the hypercube topology, the \besteffort{} strategy performs
+worse than the \makhoul{} strategy. In this case, the \makhoul{} strategy which
+tries to give more load to few neighbors reaches the equilibrum faster.
+
+For the torus topology, for which the number of links is between the line and
+the hypercube, the \makhoul{} strategy is slightly better but the difference is
+more nuanced.
+
+Globally the number of interconnection is very important. The more
+interconnection links there are, the faster the \makhoul{} strategy is because
+it distributes quickly significant amount of load even if this is unfair between
+all the neighbors. In opposition, the \besteffort{} strategy distributes the
+load fairly so this strategy is better for low connected strategy.
