From: couturie <raphael.couturier@univ-fcomte.Fr>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 07:49:40 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: modif sur la partie asynchrone (j'ai pas mal taillé dans le gras)
X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/rce2015.git/commitdiff_plain/79063682a030934c1ce2ce935c6b409d5cb4283a?ds=sidebyside;hp=-c

modif sur la partie asynchrone (j'ai pas mal taillé dans le gras)
---

79063682a030934c1ce2ce935c6b409d5cb4283a
diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index de34cb6..b1a2383 100644
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -711,17 +711,16 @@ theoretically reduce  the overall execution  time and can improve  the algorithm
 performance.
 
 In this section,  the SimGrid simulator is  used to compare the  behavior of the
-two-stage algorithm in  asynchronous mode  with GMRES  in synchronous  mode.  Several
-benchmarks have  been performed with  various combinations of the  grid resources
-(CPU, Network, matrix size, \ldots). The test  conditions are summarized
-in  Table~\ref{tab:02}. In  order to  compare  the execution  times. Table~\ref{tab:03}
-reports the  relative gains between both  algorithms. It is defined  by the ratio
-between  the   execution  time  of   GMRES  and   the  execution  time   of  the
-multisplitting.
-\LZK{Quelle table repporte les gains relatifs?? Sûrement pas Table II !!}
-\RCE{Table III avec la nouvelle numerotation}
-The  ratio  is  greater  than  one  because  the  asynchronous
-multisplitting version is faster than GMRES.
+two-stage  algorithm  in  asynchronous  mode with  GMRES  in  synchronous  mode.
+Several benchmarks  have been  performed with various  combinations of  the grid
+resources  (CPU,  Network,  matrix  size,   \ldots).  The  test  conditions  are
+summarized in Table~\ref{tab:02}.
+
+
+
+%\LZK{Quelle table repporte les gains relatifs?? Sûrement pas Table II !!}
+%\RCE{Table III avec la nouvelle numerotation}
+
 
 \begin{table}[htbp]
 \centering
@@ -779,15 +778,15 @@ multisplitting version is faster than GMRES.
  \label{tab:03}
 \end{table}
 
-Again,  comprehensive and  extensive tests  have been  conducted with  different
-parameters as  the CPU power, the  network parameters (bandwidth and  latency)
-and with different problem size. The  relative gains greater than $1$  between the
-two algorithms have  been captured after  each step  of the test.   In
-Table~\ref{tab:08}  are  reported the  best  grid  configurations allowing
-the  two-stage multisplitting algorithm to  be more than  $2.5$ times faster  than the
-classical  GMRES.  These  experiments also  show the  relative tolerance  of the
-multisplitting algorithm when using a low speed network as usually observed with
-geographically distant clusters through the internet.
+
+Table~\ref{tab:03} reports  the relative gains  between both algorithms.   It is
+defined by the ratio between the execution  time of GMRES and the execution time
+of the  multisplitting. The ratio is  greater than one because  the asynchronous
+multisplitting  version  is  faster  than   GMRES.  In  average,  the  two-stage
+multisplitting algorithm to  be more than $2.5$ times faster  than the classical
+GMRES.  These experiments also show the relative tolerance of the multisplitting
+algorithm when using a low speed network as usually observed with geographically
+distant clusters through the internet.
 
 
 \section{Conclusion}