some corrections

[mpi-energy2.git] / mpi-energy2-extension / Heter_paper.tex

diff --git a/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex b/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
index 8ada2a0b96a2b372d42beb6546a4207014bc4886..36411202a60facc765a4c095178a4b03236c71c4 100644 (file)
--- a/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
+++ b/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
@@ -755,21 +755,17 @@ time is measured for all the benchmarks over these different scenarios.
 The energy consumptions  and the execution times for all the benchmarks are 
 presented in the plots \ref{fig:eng_sen} and \ref{fig:time_sen} respectively. 
 
 The energy consumptions  and the execution times for all the benchmarks are 
 presented in the plots \ref{fig:eng_sen} and \ref{fig:time_sen} respectively. 
 

-In general, the energy consumed while executing  the NAS benchmarks over one site scenario 
-for  16 and 32 nodes is lower than the energy consumed while executing over the two sites. 
-The long distance communications between the two distributed sites increases the idle time which leads to more static energy consumption. 
+For the majority of the benchmarks, the energy consumed while executing  the NAS benchmarks over one site scenario 
+for  16 and 32 nodes is lower than the energy consumed while using two sites. 
+The long distance communications between the two distributed sites increase the idle time which leads to more static energy consumption. 

  The execution times of these benchmarks 
 over one site with 16 and 32 nodes are also lower when  compared to those of the  two sites 
 scenario.
 
 
 
  The execution times of these benchmarks 
 over one site with 16 and 32 nodes are also lower when  compared to those of the  two sites 
 scenario.
 
 
 

-The EP and MG benchmarks, where there are no or small communications, showed 
-that their execution times and the energy consumptions are not effected 
-significantly in both scenarios and when the number of nodes is increase, 
-while the other benchmarks showed the inverse, because they have more communications 
-that proportionally increase the communication times if there are slow 
-communications or using more number of nodes or both of them.
+However, the  execution times and the energy consumptions of EP and MG benchmarks, which have no or small communications, are not significantly affected 
+ in both scenarios. Even when the number of nodes is doubled. On the other hand, the communications of the rest of the benchmarks increases when using long distance communications between two sites or increasing the number of computing nodes.

 
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
 
 \begin{figure}
   \centering


@@ -798,19 +794,17 @@ The energy saving percentage is computed as the ratio between the reduced
 energy consumption, equation (\ref{eq:energy}), and the original energy consumption,
 equation (\ref{eq:eorginal}), for all benchmarks as in figure \ref{fig:eng_s}. 
 This figure shows that the energy saving percentages of one site scenario for
 energy consumption, equation (\ref{eq:energy}), and the original energy consumption,
 equation (\ref{eq:eorginal}), for all benchmarks as in figure \ref{fig:eng_s}. 
 This figure shows that the energy saving percentages of one site scenario for

-16 and 32 nodes are bigger than those of the two sites scenario. This is because
-the computations to communications ratio in  one site scenario is higher 
-than the ratio of the two sites scenarios, due to the increase in the communication
-times. Moreover, the frequencies selecting algorithm selects smaller frequencies, bigger
-scaling factors, when the computations times are higher than communication times, 
-producing  smaller energy consumption, because the dynamic energy consumption 
-is decreased linearly with computation times that decreased exponentially with 
-scaling factors. On the other side, the increase in the number of computing nodes can be 
-increase the communication times and thus producing less energy saving depending on the 
-benchmarks being executed. The benchmarks CG, MG, BT and FT show more 
-energy saving percentage in one site scenario when executed  over 16 nodes comparing to 32 nodes. While 
-the benchmarks  LU and SP showed the inverse, because there computations to 
-communications ratio is not effected to the increase in local site communications. 
+16 and 32 nodes are bigger than those of the two sites scenario which is due
+to the higher  computations to communications ratio in the first scenario   
+than in the second one. Moreover, the frequency selecting algorithm selects smaller frequencies when the computations times are higher than the communication times which 
+results in  a lower energy consumption. Indeed, the dynamic  consumed power
+is exponentially related to the CPU's frequency value. On the other side, the increase in the number of computing nodes can 
+increase the communication times and thus produces less energy saving depending on the 
+benchmarks being executed. The results of the benchmarks CG, MG, BT and FT show more 
+energy saving percentage in one site scenario when executed  over 16 nodes comparing to 32 nodes. While, LU and SP consume more energy with 16 nodes than 32 in one site  because there computations to 
+communications ratio is not affected by the increase of the number of local communications. 
+
+

 While all benchmarks are effected by the long distance communications in the two sites 
 scenarios, except  EP benchmarks. In EP benchmark  there is no communications 
 in their iterations, then it is independent from the effect of local and long 
 While all benchmarks are effected by the long distance communications in the two sites 
 scenarios, except  EP benchmarks. In EP benchmark  there is no communications 
 in their iterations, then it is independent from the effect of local and long