On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Randall Mackie <rlmackie862 at gmail.com> wrote: > When m = n = small (like 50), it works fine. When I set m=n=5000, I see > the same thing, where one process on the localhost is taking >4 G of RAM, > while all other processes are taking 137 M. > > Is this the standard behavior for MUMPS? It seems strange to me.
No, this is a problem. I do not see this with ex2. Matt > Randy > > > Matthew Knepley wrote: >> >> Does it work on KSP ex2? >> >> Matt >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Randall Mackie <rlmackie862 at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I've compiled PETSc with MUMPS support, and I'm trying to run a small >>> test >>> problem, but I'm having some problems. It seems to begin just fine, but >>> what I notice is that on one process (out of 64), the memory just keeps >>> going up and up and up until it crashes, while on the other processes, >>> the memory usage is reasonable. I'm wondering if anyone might have any >>> idea >>> why? By the way, my command file is like this: >>> >>> -ksp_type preonly >>> -pc_type lu >>> -mat_type aijmumps >>> -mat_mumps_cntl_4 3 >>> -mat_mumps_cntl_9 1 >>> >>> >>> Randy >>> >>> ps. This happens after the analysis stage and in the factorization stage. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- 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
