Hi Mohammad, > So I was wondering if anyone could help me deciding between deal II or p4est > for this task.
P4est does only supply you with the mesh management in parallel - either directly or using it through the distributed::Triangulation class in deal.II. The scalability between both approaches should be similar. I guess your answer depends on if you want to continue using your finite differences or if you want to use finite elements from deal instead. But even if you decide to implement your own finite differences you could use the wrappers in deal for the mesh and the linear algebra. It depends on if you like the c++ or the c interface more. :-) Using p4est directly has the advantage of more functionality... > (I guess HYPRE could also be called through PETSc > interface within deal II?) Yes, in the subversion there is a class called PETScWrappers::PreconditionBoomerAMG which is the AMG from the Hypre package. -- Timo Heister http://num.math.uni-goettingen.de/~heister On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Mohammad Mirzadeh <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > I am a graduate student at the Mechanical Eng. Dept. in UC Santa Barbara and > I am working with Cartesian grids built on octree data structures. I already > have a functional sequential FDM code for solving PNP equations as in ion > dynamics for arbitrary geometries. I have the intention of parallelizing my > code using PETSc and HYPRE to handle the linear solver part but I need to > use a package to handle the parallelization of my grid data structure. > Following on the suggestions made in the PETSc mailing-list I decided to > consider using either deal II or p4est packages. > So I was wondering if anyone could help me deciding between deal II or p4est > for this task. I am aware that it is possible to access both PETSc and p4est > through deal II interfaces (I guess HYPRE could also be called through PETSc > interface within deal II?) I also know that p4est has a very good > scalability up to 200k CPUs (although I may hardly ever go beyond 1024). > That being said, I almost only need to use either packages to parallelize my > data structure since on each CPU I could still use my sequential functions. > I would greatly appreciate if you could help me decide the right way for > doing this. > Thanks, > Mohammad > > ================================================= > Ph.D Candidate, > CASL Group and Squires Group, > Department of Mechanical Engineering, > University of California Santa Barabra, > Santa Barbara 93106-5070, CA > ================================================= > _______________________________________________ > dealii mailing list http://poisson.dealii.org/mailman/listinfo/dealii > > _______________________________________________ dealii mailing list http://poisson.dealii.org/mailman/listinfo/dealii
