16 (mpirun 16) 1 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 5 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 10 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 20 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 50 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 100 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 300 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 400 –np Table : The effect of work unit size on computational efficiency using cyclical allocation Static Cyclical Allocation Number of of strip Execution Time (s) Speedup C-to-C Processes in pixels ratio 1 (mpirun 1) 23 –np 2 (mpirun 2) 23 –np 4 (mpirun 4) 23 –np 9 (mpirun 9) 23 –np 16 (mpirun 16) 23 –np 20 (mpirun 20) 23 –np 25 (mpirun 25) 23 –np 36 (mpirun 36) 23 –np 49 (mpirun 49) 23 –np 55 (mpirun 55) 23 –np 64 (mpirun 64) 23 –np Table 5. The effect of increasing the number of processors on a fixed allocation size Dynamic Allocation Number Work Execution Speedup of Unit Size Time (s) processes (rows x Ratio columns) 9 (mpirun 1x1 9) –np 9 (mpirun 10x10 9) –np 9 (mpirun 30x30 9) –np 9 (mpirun 50x50 9) –np 9 (mpirun 75x75 9) –np 9 (mpirun 100x100 9) –np 16 1x1 (mpirun 16)
16 (mpirun –np 16) 1 16 (mpirun –np 16) 5 16 (mpirun –np 16) 10 16 (mpirun –np 16) 20 16 (mpirun –np 16) 50 16 (mpirun –np 16) 100 16 (mpirun –np 16) 300 16 (mpirun –np 16) 400 Table : The effect of work unit size on computational efficiency using cyclical allocation Static Cyclical Allocation Number of Processes of strip in pixels Execution Time (s) Speedup C-to-C ratio 1 (mpirun –np 1) 23 2 (mpirun –np 2) 23 4 (mpirun –np 4) 23 9 (mpirun –np 9) 23 16 (mpirun –np 16) 23 20 (mpirun –np 20) 23 25 (mpirun –np 25) 23 36 (mpirun –np 36) 23 49 (mpirun –np 49) 23 55 (mpirun –np 55) 23 64 (mpirun –np 64) 23 Table 5. The effect of increasing the number of processors on a fixed allocation size Dynamic Allocation Number of processes Work Unit Size (rows x columns) Execution Time (s) Speedup Ratio 9 (mpirun –np 9) 1x1 9 (mpirun –np 9) 10x10 9 (mpirun –np 9) 30x30 9 (mpirun –np 9) 50x50 9 (mpirun –np 9) 75x75 9 (mpirun –np 9) 100x100 16 (mpirun 16) 1x1