>> I could, >> however, run it, which I did using Implicit Gear (M=1). >> This turned out to >> be much faster, but still very slow compared with COR > The GSL developers have tried hard to make their GEAR1 accurately > reproduce the results (and algorithm) from the original GEAR1.F > integrator, so I don't think we can expect it to match the improved > BDF/Newton algorithm from CVODE. I will look into how hard it would be > to produce a derivative of the GSL Gear module which behaves like the > CVODE version.
How hard work it be to actually add CVODE and its numerical integrators to those already available in pcenv through the GSL? Not some special version of it coded up in Auckland, but CVODE itself as distributed from SUNDIALS. Seems to me that pcenv is using a whole bunch of new technology that no one else currently uses in their tools - CORBA, XUL/mozilla, cellml_corba_server. So in order to get a better understanding of the performance of pcenv it would be a good idea to make everything as "standard" as possible. Then the actual integration can be taken out of the equation when comparing performance, leaving just the underlying technology of pcenv. David. -- David Nickerson, PhD Research Fellow Division of Bioengineering Faculty of Engineering National University of Singapore Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
