On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Hong Zhang <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > Barry, > > Elemental interface is not well tested yet. > > I would wait for few months to remove PLAPACK stuff. > > PLAPACK stuff is (and never was) well tested. Does anyone rely on it? > I hope not. And I hate to have someone new come along and rely on it. I am for removing it. I wrote it, and so I can guarantee that it is not maintained. We should just fix anything that comes up rather than fooling ourselves that this current stuff works. Matt > > Barry > > > > > Hong > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > Should I remove all the MPIDense stuff from PETSc now? It is uses > PLAPACK which is buggy and unsupported. > > > > That is still a good distribution for MxN matrices with M>>N. We can do > them with Elemental, but that would use a different distribution so it will > be more complicated to interact with. (The current Elemental interface uses > a squarish distribution, but we can tell Elemental to use the [VC,*] > distribution (for which fewer operations are supported). > > > > The main thing I care about for that distribution is QR. The best format > is dense and row-aligned. I don't care whether it uses MPIDense or a new > "multi-vector" thing, but that concept should be somewhere. > > > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120813/22dc6720/attachment.html>
