From 79063682a030934c1ce2ce935c6b409d5cb4283a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: couturie <raphael.couturier@univ-fcomte.Fr>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 09:49:40 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] =?utf8?q?modif=20sur=20la=20partie=20asynchrone=20(j'?=
=?utf8?q?ai=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