> Very nice! Thanks for doing this. It is great to see that DASSL is > largely competitive. I am also happy that ode23s isn't completely > useless :-)
Yep, DASSL seems good and ode23s is fine too. > In ODE.jl we have still the problem that we don't use in-place rhs > functions or Jacobians. I guess this becomes problematic for larger > systems (especially in combination with low order methods). Yes, it would be good the have the option to use in-place functions in ODE.jl and DASSL.jl. Memory allocations with the Sundials solvers is way lower. In fact, it would be nice to be able to use both. > I think it would be nice if your tests/plots would include the version > (or commit) of the packages. Then we could use your package to monitor > performance improvements/regressions. Yes, I am planning to add some way to store previous test results. This should include versions of the solver, IVPTestSuite and Julia. I could set up a ode-speed center, just like http://speed.julialang.org/ ;-) Glad you like it! M > Thanks again, > > Alex. > > On Friday, 30 January 2015 15:03:24 UTC+1, Mauro wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> those of you who solve initial value problems (IVP) of ordinary and >> algebraic differential equations (ODE/DAE) might be interested in: >> https://github.com/mauro3/IVPTestSuite.jl It provides several test cases >> for ODE and DAE solvers based on previous, well-known test sets. It can >> easily be adapted to run with your solvers. >> >> I ran the tests for the three ODE-solver packages ODE.jl, DASSL.jl and >> Sundials.jl. Results are here: >> https://github.com/mauro3/IVPTestSuite.jl/blob/master/results/results.md >> >> I found: >> - DASSL.jl seems to be as capable as the Sundials solvers if sometimes >> slower but also sometimes faster. >> - For large(-ish) systems, e.g. stemming from PDEs, DASSL.jl seems to >> be the best and fastest choice at the moment because of the patchy support >> of >> sparse Jacobians in Sundials. (please correct me if wrong). >> - ODE.ode23s does ok too but is generally a lot slower than DASSL, >> presumably because of its lower order. >> >> However, take those results with a grain of salt as I haven't spent too >> much time optimising yet. >> >> -- Mauro
