petites modifs

[loba-papers.git] / loba-besteffort / loba-besteffort.tex

diff --git a/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex b/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex
index 5570b359a51ad754360f6c06cf66c6ec042684f2..e966c402212b5dcb376ca9744b12cc5b71073e20 100644 (file)
--- a/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex
+++ b/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex
@@ -653,7 +653,7 @@ With these constraints in mind, we defined the following metrics:
 \label{sec.results}
 
 In this section, the results for the different simulations will be presented,
 \label{sec.results}
 
 In this section, the results for the different simulations will be presented,

-and we'll try to explain our observations.
+and we will try to explain our observations.

 
 \subsubsection{Cluster vs grid platforms}
 
 
 \subsubsection{Cluster vs grid platforms}
 


@@ -727,28 +727,33 @@ allocated time, or because we simply decided not to run it.
 \subsubsection{The \besteffort{} strategy with the load initially on only one
   node}
 
 \subsubsection{The \besteffort{} strategy with the load initially on only one
   node}
 

-Before looking at the different variations, we'll 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
-are respectively labeled ``b'' and ``a''.
+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's 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.
+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
 
 On the contrary, for the hypercube topology, the \besteffort{} strategy performs

-worse than the \makhoul{} strategy.
+worse than the \makhoul{} strategy. In this case, the \makhoul{} strategy which
+tries to give more load to few neighbors reaches the equilibrum faster.

 
 

-Finally, the results are more nuanced for the torus topology.
+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.

 
 

-This can be explained by ...
+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.

 
 

--> interconnection
-
-plus c'est connecté, moins bon est BE car à vouloir trop bien équilibrer
-localement, le processeurs se perturbent mutuellement.  Du coup, makhoul qui
-équilibre moins bien localement est moins perturbé par ces interférences.

 
 \subsubsection{With the virtual load extension with the load initially on only
   one node}
 
 \subsubsection{With the virtual load extension with the load initially on only
   one node}