From f66f867710d2e58ab32016531b05ae0d9adbfc58 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arnaud Giersch Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:59:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Small updates. --- loba-besteffort/loba-besteffort.tex | 15 ++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) 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. -- 2.39.5