X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/loba-papers.git/blobdiff_plain/16e862f93239637fe4feae9949de297be4d988a4..f66f867710d2e58ab32016531b05ae0d9adbfc58:/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex?ds=inline

diff --git a/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex b/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex
index 2d0f414..d731afe 100644
--- a/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex
+++ b/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex
@@ -732,9 +732,17 @@ Before looking at the different variations, we'll first show that the plain
 strategy.  On the graphs from the figure~\ref{fig.results1}, these strategies
 are respectively labeled ``b'' and ``a''.
 
-twice faster on lines
-almost equivalent on torus
-worse on hcubes
+We can see that the relative performance of these startegies 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.
+
+On the contrary, for the hypercube topoly, the \besteffort{} strategy performs
+worse than the \makhoul{} strategy.
+
+Finally, the results are more nuanced for the torus topology.
+
+This can be explained by ...
 
 -> interconnection
 
@@ -763,6 +771,7 @@ Soit c'est équivalent, soit on gagne -> surtout quand les comms coutent cher et
 qu'il y a beaucoup de voisins.
 
 \subsubsection{The $k$ parameter}
+\label{results-k}
 
 Dans le cas où les comms coutent cher et ou BE se fait avoir, on peut ameliorer
 les perfs avec le param k.