On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:06:27PM +0100, Niclas Jansson wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:31:54 +0100 > Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > We (Nicklas) have now a preliminary distributed parallel > > > implementation running for Poisson and a Unicorn flow solver. The > > > structure is still quite messy and the partitioning is based on > > > Metis, but we expect it to be integrated with DOLFIN in the coming > > > months, hopefully before the summer. > > > > Could this be done in small pieces? I'm a little worried about seeing > > big changesets that add things to the mesh classes. > > > > > When the structure is more clear we can discuss on the mailing list > > > how to best incorporate this into DOLFIN. Apart from the structure > > > of the implementation we are also focusing on distributed local mesh > > > refinement. > > > > Great. > > > > What is the difference from what we have now? Is it the same but with > > a distributed mesh (so each processor just sees the local part, not > > the whole mesh)? Or is it something different? > > > > Yes, each processor only sees the local part. The entire problem is > never represented on one processor. Preprocessing, assembly, solution > and postprocessing are all done without gathering/scattering data > to/from one processor. > > The only modification to the mesh classes is a new class storing > information about ghost points and vertex local to global mapping.
What about local-to-global mapping of edges, faces etc? > Most of the messy parts are inside the function classes. Sounds scary. It would be good to avoid adding more complexity to the function classes. -- Anders _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
