-The energy consumptions and execution times of running the NAS parallel
-benchmarks, class D, over these four different scenarios are presented
-in the figures \ref{fig:eng-cons-mc} and \ref{fig:time-mc} respectively.
-
-The execution times for most of the NAS benchmarks are higher over the one site multi-cores per node scenario
- than the execution time of those running over one site single core per node scenario. Indeed,
- the communication times are higher in the one site multi-cores scenario than in the latter scenario because all the cores of a node share the same node network link which can be saturated when running communication bound applications. On the other hand, the execution times for most of the NAS benchmarks are lower over
-the two site multi-cores scenario than those over the two sites one core scenario.
-
-This goes back when using multicores is decreasing the communications.
-As explained previously, the cores shared same nodes' linkbut the communications between the cores
-are still less than the communication times between the nodes over the long distance
-networks, and thus the over all execution time decreased. \textcolor{red}{this is not true}
-
-The experiments showed that for most of the NAS benchmarks and between the four scenarios, the one site one core scenario gives the best execution times because the communication times are the lowest. Indeed, in this scenario each core has a dedicated network link and all the communications are local.
-Moreover, the energy consumptions of the NAS benchmarks are lower over the
-one site one core scenario than over the one site multi-cores scenario because
-the first scenario had less execution time than the latter which results in less static energy being consumed.
-The computations to communications ratios of the NAS benchmarks are higher over the one site one core scenario than the other scenarios \textcolor{red}{ then the new scaled frequencies are decreased the dynamic energy
-consumption which is decreased exponentially
-with the new frequency scaling factors. I do not understand this sentence}
-\textcolor{red}{It is useless to use multi-cores then!}
-
-
- These experiments also showed that the energy
-consumption and the execution times of the EP and MG benchmarks do not change significantly over these four
-scenarios because there are no or small communications
-which could increase or decrease the static power consumptions. Contrary to EP and MG, the energy consumptions and the execution times of the rest of the benchmarks vary according to the communication
-times that are different from one scenario to the other.
-
-The energy saving percentages of all NAS benchmarks running over these four scenarios are presented in figure \ref{fig:eng-s-mc}. The figure
-shows that the energy saving percentages are higher over the two sites multi-cores scenario
-than over the two sites one core scenario, because the computation
-times are higher in the first scenario than in the latter, thus, more dynamic energy can be saved by applying the frequency scaling algorithm. \textcolor{red}{why the computation times are higher!}
-
-
-In contrast, in the one site one
-core and one site multi-cores scenarios the energy saving percentages
-are approximately equivalent, on average they are up to 25\%. In both scenarios there are a small difference in the
-computations to communications ratios which leads the proposed scaling algorithm
-to select similar frequencies for both scenarios.
-
-The
-performance degradation percentages of the NAS benchmarks are presented in
-figure \ref{fig:per-d-mc}.
-
-It indicates that the performance
-degradation percentages for the NAS benchmarks are higher over the two sites
-multi-cores scenario than over the two sites one core scenario, equal on average to 7\% and 4\% respectively.
-Moreover, using the two sites multi-cores scenario increased
-the computations to communications ratio, which may increase
-the overall execution time when the proposed scaling algorithm is applied and the frequencies scaled down.
-
-
-When the benchmarks are executed over the one
-site one core scenario their performance degradation percentages, on average
-is equal to 10\%, are higher than those executed over one site one core,
-which on average is equal to 7\%. \textcolor{red}{You are comparing the one
-site one core scenario to itself! Please rewrite all the following paragraphs because they are full of mistakes! Look how I modified the previous parts, discover your mistakes and stop making the same mistakes.}
-
-So, in one site
-multicores scenario the computations to communications ratio is decreased
-as mentioned before, thus selecting new frequencies are not increased
-the overall execution time. The tradeoff distances of all NAS
-benchmarks over all scenarios are presented in the figure \ref{fig:dist-mc}.
-These tradeoff distances are used to verified which scenario is the best in term of
-energy and performance ratio. The one sites multicores scenario is the best scenario in term of
-energy and performance tradeoff, on average is equal to 17.6\%, when comparing to the one site one core
-scenario, one average is equal to 15.3\%. The one site multicores scenario
-has the same energy saving percentages of the one site one core scenario but
-with less performance degradation. The two sites multicores scenario is gives better
-energy and performance tradeoff, one average is equal to 14.7\%, than the two sites
-one core, on average is equal to 13.3\%.
-
-Finally, using multi-cores in both scenarios increased the energy and performance tradeoff
-distance. This generally due to using multicores was increased the computations to communications
-ratio in two sites scenario and thus the energy saving percentage increased over the performance degradation percentage, whereas this ratio was decreased
-in one site scenario causing the performance degradation percentage decreased over the energy saving percentage.
-
-
-
-
