Dear Dr Zheng,

That you for your revised manuscript. It appears that your changes do substantially address the concerns of the reviewers, and in particular reviewer 1 has now indicated in private correspondence that he no longer needs to see the revised manuscript. However his point about font sizes in figures does still stand and still needs to be fixed. In particular, the figures are very inconsistent in this regard, with some being very good and others being awful. Specifically, you should be aiming for the text in the figures to be at least the size of footnote text for the main manuscript. With respect to the particular figures:
Fig 1. Very good. All figures should have fonts this size.
Fig 2. Much too small text. Rearrange into two rows so the figures can be big enough to read the text. Also, please make the fonts consistent. a, b, and c are currently all different, and "Compute Nodes", "Switch", and "Group" are all different. This just distracts the reader.
Fig 3. Text is slightly too small. Also font is not consistent with previous figures.
Fig 4. The size of a is fine, though the fonts are once again internally inconsistent. b and c are much too small, both in font and in the diagrams. My eyes hurt trying to read them.
Fig 5. Good size, but why are the numbers in a different font from the text?
Fig 6. Axis label is a little small, otherwise good.
Fig 7. Text is far too small. Images are also somewhat too small to decipher.
Fig 8. Everything is too small, Basically unintelligible. Fonts are also inconsistent.
Fig 9. Fonts possibly a little soma but not disastrous. Fonts are inconsistent.
Fig 10. Much too small text. Magnifying glass required.

Please fix these issues with the figures. This is required to achieve a publication-quality manuscript that we can accept, but it will also assist readers to take in the information in your figures.

Regards,

David Ham