From 380e5cf3507605371bba52eb9a64a9e9c6bcdf24 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: couturie Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:35:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] petites modifs --- loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex | 39 ++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex b/loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex index 5570b35..e966c40 100644 --- 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, -and we'll try to explain our observations. +and we will try to explain our observations. \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} -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 -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} -- 2.39.5