This can't be fixed simply by reducing 10000. After all, 250^2 is larger and that's just one more level of nesting.
We could set time limits on tests and kill them if they don't complete. On October 14, 2014 6:28:12 AM CDT, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:30 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Does anyone object if I change the default KSP max iterations from >10,000 to 250? >>> >>> The rational is that 10,000 is absurd and if you don’t see >convergence by 250 it generally is pretty hopeless. Users, of course, >can set a higher max it. >> >> This depends a bit on the problem. Iterative methods for >high-frequency >> problems often need a lot of iterations, for example. >> >> My concern is mostly for people that only every once in a while use >more >> than 250 iterations, the solve fails (confusingly because it "used to >> work"), and they have to start over. Also that just to demonstrate >> simple scaling behavior with an example like KSP ex2, you'll need to >> bump up the max iterations. >> >> Does the marginal value of saving seconds/minutes(?) > >8+ hours is how long one of the (pretty small) nightly test examples >that used inner outer iterations (when someone screwed up the code so >the outer did not converge). Normally the example took < 10 iterations >and ran very quickly. > > > > >> for a solver to >> reach 10k iterations (when you forgot to enable enough monitoring to >> know what's happening) offset the confusion and alleged misbehavior >for >> the people that want to keep iterating?
