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 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
