From c588aa3c5ca9089bb032be27a9aac2ad54c28c64 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ziane Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:39:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] petite modis --- paper.tex | 9 +-------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex index 26f40cb..14147dd 100644 --- a/paper.tex +++ b/paper.tex @@ -574,12 +574,7 @@ The execution times between both algorithms is significant with different grid a \end{figure} \subsubsection{Simulations for two different inter-clusters network speeds\\} -In Figure~\ref{fig:02} we present the execution times of both algorithms to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$ on two different simulated network $N1$ and $N2$ (see Table~\ref{tab:01}). As it was previously said, we can see from the figure that the Krylov two-stage algorithm is more sensitive the number of clusters than the GMRES algorithm. However, we can notice an interesting behavior of the Krylov two-stage algorithm. It is less sensitive to bad network bandwidth and latency for the inter-clusters links than the GMRES algorithms. This means that the multisplitting methods are more efficient for distributed systems with high latency networks. - - - - -%% The figure shows that the Krylov two-stage algorithm is more sensitive the number of clusters than the GMRES algorithm. +In Figure~\ref{fig:02} we present the execution times of both algorithms to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$ on two different simulated network $N1$ and $N2$ (see Table~\ref{tab:01}). As it was previously said, we can see from the figure that the Krylov two-stage algorithm is more sensitive to the number of clusters than the GMRES algorithm. However, we can notice an interesting behavior of the Krylov two-stage algorithm. It is less sensitive to bad network bandwidth and latency for the inter-clusters links than the GMRES algorithms. This means that the multisplitting methods are more efficient for distributed systems with high latency networks. %% In this section, the experiments compare the behavior of the algorithms running on a %% speeder inter-cluster network (N2) and also on a less performant network (N1) respectively defined in the test conditions Table~\ref{tab:02}. @@ -588,8 +583,6 @@ In Figure~\ref{fig:02} we present the execution times of both algorithms to solv %% for both algorithms when using a grid architecture like 4 $\times$ 16 or 8 $\times$ 8: the reduction factor is around $2$. The results depict also that when %% the network speed drops down (variation of 12.5\%), the difference between the two Multisplitting algorithms execution times can reach more than 25\%. -\LZK{J'ai mis que le problème résolu dans la figure 4 est de taille $150^3$. CE, pourrais tu le confirmer?} - \begin{figure}[t] \centering \includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_n1_x_n2.pdf} -- 2.39.5