-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 sites multi-cores scenario than those over the two sites one core scenario. In the two sites multi-cores scenario, There are three types of communications :
-\begin{itemize}
-\item between cores on the same node via shared memory
-\item between cores from distinct nodes but belonging to the same cluster or site via local network
-\item between cores from distinct sites via long distance network
-\end{itemize}
-The latency of the communications increases from shared memory to LAN to WAN.
-Therefore, using multi-cores communicating via shared memory
-has reduced the communication times, and thus the overall execution time is also decreased.
-
-
-
-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 when compared to the ratios of the other scenarios.
-More energy reduction was achieved when this ratio is increased because the proposed scaling algorithm selects smaller frequencies that decrease the dynamic power consumption.
-
-
- \textcolor{red}{ The next sentence is completely false! It is impossible to have these results! Whereas, the energy consumption in the two sites multi-cores scenario is higher than the energy consumption
-of the two sites one core scenario.
-Actually, using multi-cores in this scenario decreased the communication times that decreased the static energy consumption.}
-
-
-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 the figure \ref{fig:eng-s-mc}. It shows that the energy saving percentages over the two sites multi-cores scenario
-and over the two sites one core scenario are on average equal to 22\% and 18\%
-respectively. The energy saving percentages are higher in the former scenario because its computations to communications ratio is higher than the ratio of the latter scenario as mentioned previously.
-
-
-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 shows 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 are equal on average
-to 10\% and are higher than those executed over the one site multi-cores scenario,
-which on average is equal to 7\%.
-
-\textcolor{red}{the next sentence is completely false!
-The higher performance degradation percentages over the first scenario is due to the use of multi-cores which
-decreases the computations to communications ratio. Therefore, selecting small
-frequencies by the scaling algorithm do not increase the execution time significantly. }
-
-
-The tradeoff distance percentages of the NAS
-benchmarks over all scenarios are presented in the figure \ref{fig:dist-mc}.
-These tradeoff distance percentages are used to verify which scenario is the best in terms of energy reduction and performance. The figure shows that using muti-cores in both of the one site and two sites scenarios gives bigger tradeoff distance percentages, on overage equal to 17.6\% and 15.3\% respectively, than using one core per node in both of one site and two sites scenarios, on average equal to 14.7\% and 13.3\% respectively.
