On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Fande Kong <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Smith, Barry F. <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Fande, > >>> > >>> This is a great question. I am forwarding it to Mike Heroux who > >>> has a high level position in the ECP; because I have similar concerns > and > >>> also don't have a good answer. ParMetis does indeed have a poor > license and > >>> essentially no support. Perhaps Mike has some ideas. > >>> > >> > >> Also, the parallel scalability is crappy (sorry George). > >> > > > > Do we know the underneath reason why the parallels scalability is poor? > > Poor algorithm? Poor implementation? > > My recollection is that the k-way refiner has an O(k^2) data structure.
Theoretically speaking, does the data structure have to be O(k^2)? Any existing algorithm to avoid that? > > Here is a list of partitioning packages > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_partition#cite_note-patoh-16 > > > > Anybody has experiences on any of the listed packages? > > Many of them are unmaintained. KaHIP is the most interesting in my > opinion. Why KaHIP is the most interesting? The algorithm is novel or better than ParMetis or PTScotch? > It is GPLv2 which is an issue for some users, though I recall > the lead developer might consider a more permissive license. I chatted > with John Peterson about this a few months ago, but I don't know if he > installed and tested it. I suspect there would be interest if you could > contribute toward --download-kahip and a MatPartitioning implementation. > I definitely will take a try. Fande, > > > Fande, > > > > > >> Bill Gropp has proposed in the past developing a new > >> partitioner along more scalable lines, such as the Teng algorithm used > in > >> Padma's 2013 SC paper > >> (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2503280). Jed favors a multilevel > >> approach which I do not understand. > >> Its a shame that all the development time that went into PT-Scotch could > >> not produce a scalable, open > >> partitioner. Also, the label-push stuff seems only to work well for > highly > >> connected graphs, not meshes. > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Barry > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jun 1, 2018, at 5:46 PM, Kong, Fande <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Developers, > >>> > >>> I have introduced MatPartitioning interface to MOOSE. It is working > >>> great, and we can use all external partitioning packages via a simple > >>> interface. > >>> > >>> But here is a concern. Almost all the packages are not under > development > >>> any more. Does this make a bug fix more difficult in the future. Also > some > >>> of them have bad licenses. > >>> > >>> I was wondering there is any other partitioning package in the > community? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Fande, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > >> https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/> > >> >
