Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> I don't know the answer to your question (Matt?), but do you really need >> >> to reorder the entire mesh or would it be sufficient to label your >> >> points with their original numbering? >> > >> > >> > Maybe I am wrong, but I think it amounts to the same thing. If we are >> going >> > to output things in parallel, >> > we would need to communicate to he writing process, which this >> essentially >> > does. >> >> Writing a label doesn't require redistribution of the mesh. It's possible >> to do parallel IO. >> > > My understanding is that 3rd party programs want the mesh in the > original order, so we want it ordered in the HDF5 file in the original > order. You could I guess write it in the order, but it seems messy to > write stuff all over the place in the file. Is that what you mean?
What is the third-party program doing? It might be easier for it to apply the permutation than for PETSc to redistribute in order to write the file in a possibly poor ordering.
