From 79063682a030934c1ce2ce935c6b409d5cb4283a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: couturie Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 09:49:40 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?utf8?q?modif=20sur=20la=20partie=20asynchrone=20(j'ai?= =?utf8?q?=20pas=20mal=20taill=C3=A9=20dans=20le=20gras)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- paper.tex | 39 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) 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} -- 2.39.5