Try UMFPACK. The fastest for my linear solves. 2011/12/20 Dave Nystrom <dnystrom1 at comcast.net>
> I have been comparing sequential SuperLU on one of my linear solves versus > PETSc LU. I am finding SuperLU to be a little over 2x slower than PETSc > LU. > I was wondering if this is due to SuperLU not being tuned to my problem or > if > the PETSc LU algorithm performance is expected to be superior to that of > SuperLU in general. I did play around with the reordering options for > SuperLU but did not find anything superior to the defaults. I was also > wondering if building PETSc and its external packages with another compiler > such as PGI or Intel might result in higher performance in this regard. Or > whether using a vendor blas like MKL would speed up SuperLU. Or perhaps > the > interface of SuperLU to PETSc results in some extra data copying that is > the > difference. > > Does anyone have any idea why SuperLU might be that much slower than PETSc > LU? > > I also tried spooles and that was just a little slower than PETSc LU. And > I > tried MUMPS and that seg faulted after my problem had been running over an > hour. This particular problem was running for less than 3 minutes with > PETSc > LU. > > I would be interested in any suggestions of things to try to speed up my LU > solve with either PETSc or any of the external packages. Right now, I'm > just > doing serial, single node calculations. > > Thanks, > > Dave > -- Stefano -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111220/64602db5/attachment.html>
