Hi Hong, Thanks for the email - this appears to be happening in the factorization stage, and one process continues to just eat up memory. I tried running your ex2.c with m=n=5000, and I saw the same behavior. I was wondering if there was some setting I was suppose to toggle, but it sounds like this behavior is not correct.
I have another program from years ago that called the MUMPS routines directly. I might try that and see what happens. Randy Hong Zhang wrote: > > Randy, > The petsc interface does not create much of extra > memories. > The analysis phase of MUMPS solver is sequential - which might causes > one process blow up with memory. > I'm forwarding this email to the mumps developer > for their input. > > Jean-Yves, > What do you think about the reported problem > (see attached below)? > > Thanks, > > Hong > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Randall Mackie wrote: > >> Barry, >> >> I don't think it's the matrix - I saw the same behavior when I ran your >> ex2.c program and set m=n=5000. >> >> Randy >> >> >> Barry Smith wrote: >>> >>> If m and n are the number of rows and columns of the sparse matrix >>> (i.e. it is >>> tiny problem) then please >>> send us matrix so we can experiment with it to petsc-maint at mcs.anl.log >>> >>> You can send us the matrix by simply running with -ksp_view_binary and >>> sending us the file binaryoutput. >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Randall Mackie 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
