corrected final section

diff --git a/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex b/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
index 05d54fb7200236eedf4b4c07cb56373772d16726..f00d0654ef85249aa932af30f4d08dea4dea937d 100644 (file)
--- a/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
+++ b/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
@@ -1242,20 +1242,17 @@ presented in the figures \ref{fig:edp-eng}, \ref{fig:edp-perf} and \ref{fig:edp-
 
 
 
 
 
 

-\textcolor{blue}{As shown form these figures, the proposed frequencies selection algorithm, Maxdist, outperform the EDP algorithm in term of energy and performance for all of the benchmarks executed over the two scenarios. 
-Generally, the proposed algorithm gives better results for all benchmarks because it is
-optimized the distance between the energy saving and the performance degradation in the same time. 
+As shown in these figures, the proposed frequencies selection algorithm, Maxdist, outperforms the EDP algorithm in terms of energy consumption reduction and performance for all of the benchmarks executed over the two scenarios. 
+The proposed algorithm gives better results than EDP  because it 
+maximizes the energy saving and the performance at the same time. 

 Moreover, the proposed scaling algorithm gives the same weight for these two metrics.
 Moreover, the proposed scaling algorithm gives the same weight for these two metrics.

-Whereas, the EDP algorithm gives some times negative tradeoff values for some benchmarks in the two sites scenarios.
+Whereas, the EDP algorithm gives sometimes negative tradeoff values for some benchmarks in the two sites scenarios.

 These negative tradeoff values mean that the performance degradation percentage is higher than energy saving percentage.
 These negative tradeoff values mean that the performance degradation percentage is higher than energy saving percentage.

-The higher positive value of the tradeoff distance percentage mean that the  energy saving percentage is much higher than the performance degradation percentage. 
+The high positive values of the tradeoff distance percentage mean that the  energy saving percentage is much higher than the performance degradation percentage. 

 The time complexity of both Maxdist and EDP algorithms are $O(N \cdot M \cdot F)$ and 
 The time complexity of both Maxdist and EDP algorithms are $O(N \cdot M \cdot F)$ and 

-$O(N \cdot M \cdot F^2)$ respectively. Where $N$ is the number of the clusters, $M$ is the number of nodes and $F$ is the 
-maximum number of available frequencies. The proposed algorithm, Maxdist, has selected the best frequencies in a small execution time, 
-on average is equal to  0.01 $ms$, when it is executed over 32 nodes distributed between Nancy and Lyon sites.
-While the EDP algorithm was slower than Maxdist algorithm by ten times over the same number of nodes and same distribution, its execution time on average 
-is equal to 0.1 $ms$. 
-}
+$O(N \cdot M \cdot F^2)$ respectively, where $N$ is the number of the clusters, $M$ is the number of nodes and $F$ is the 
+maximum number of available frequencies. When Maxdist is applied to a benchmark that is being executed over 32 nodes distributed between Nancy and Lyon sites, it takes on average  $0.01 ms$  to compute the best frequencies while EDP is on average ten times slower over the same architecture.  
+

 
 
 \section{Conclusion}
 
 
 \section{Conclusion}