"DistributedMesh" is good, but it might still have some of the same
problems we encounter with the name "ParallelMesh": People might think. "Oh,
I want distributed, I'm running on a distributed computer, or I'm running
in distributed memory...".
Perhaps half of the battle is really improving the documentation and even
providing use cases for when you might move to "ParallelMesh". People often
just don't have a good feel for what is big. Every once in awhile we get
the my problem doesn't scale message on our list. Somebody is trying to
scale a mesh with a thousand elements to several dozen processors... I have
this link bookmarked for that case:
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/faq.html#slowerparallel
We need the same thing for when to use one mesh type over the other.
Cody
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM Cody Permann <codyperm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:07 AM Derek Gaston <fried...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Backwards compatibility is trivial... a typedef will work...
>>
>> lol... you've been watching too much Walking Dead!
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>>
>> SerialMesh -> MemoryWastingMesh
>>
> +1
>> ParallelMesh -> TimeWastingMesh
>> +1
>> ?
>>
>> Those really crack me up and they actually nail the tradeoffs perfectly!
> However maybe the glass is half full instead:
>
> SerialMesh -> TimeEfficientMesh
>
> ParallelMesh -> SpaceEfficientMesh
>
> Cody
>
>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:05 PM John Peterson <jwpeter...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Derek Gaston <fried...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The time has come. There is simply too much confusion between
>>>> ParallelMesh and SerialMesh. It seems like there's not a week that goes by
>>>> that we don't get a question about using one or the other in the wrong way
>>>> on the mailing lists (both libMesh and MOOSE).
>>>>
>>>> I propose this:
>>>>
>>>> ParallelMesh -> DontUseThisMeshUnlessYouHaveMoreThan100MillionElements
>>>>
>>>> SerialMesh -> ThisIsTheMeshYouReallyWantToUse
>>>>
>>>> Seriously though:
>>>>
>>>> SerialMesh -> ReplicatedMesh (get that damn Serial word out of there,
>>>> it works in Parallel too!)
>>>>
>>>> ParallelMesh -> DecomposedMesh (It actually works in Serial as well!)
>>>>
>>>> It might also be worth adding a warning to ParallelMesh:
>>>>
>>>> if (parallel_n_elem() < 1e7)
>>>> libmesh_warning("You don't have enough elements to warrant using a
>>>> ParallelMesh. Consider using SerialMesh instead!");
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't want to do this without making it backwards compatible with
>>> the old names.
>>>
>>> I don't like your proposed names (decomposed == zombies?) but I'm sure
>>> we could find others.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Transform Data into Opportunity.
>> Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
>> Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
>> Click to learn more.
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libmesh-devel mailing list
>> Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
