Okay, but can you tell me why when I tried to turn off the positive definite shift by adding:
-pc_factor_shift_positive_definite PETSC_FALSE so that I'm consistent with the previous version of Petsc, I got the following error: Invalid Argument! Unknown logical value: PETSC_FALSE! Thanks, Randy Barry Smith wrote: > > Run the old code with -ksp_view_binary this will create a file called > binaryoutput; you can then > run src/ksp/ksp/examples/tutorials/ex10.c using that input file. Use the > ex10 from the old version > of PETSc and then the ex10 from the new version. Do they have they same > convergence? > Now run the new code (that is build your code with petsc-3.0.) with > -ksp_view_binary and run that > binaryoutput file with the old and new ex10 to see what happens. > > Basically there are two possible changes with the change in the version: > 1) the matrix/right hand side has changed or > 2) the solver has changed to behave differently. > > By running the four cases you can start to get a handle on what has > actually changed, this will > lead you to what needs to be investigated next. > > Barry > > On Jan 30, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Randall Mackie wrote: > >> I just downloaded and compiled Petsc 3.0.0-p2, and after making some >> changes >> in my code to specify the correct location of the include files, finally >> got everything to compile okay. >> >> Now, I'm trying to run my test problem, and it's not converging. When >> I say >> not converging, the first line (with ksp_monitor_true_residual) shows >> that >> the true and preconditioned residuals are the same as before, but >> immediately >> thereafter, the preconditioned residual fails to go below 1e-8 whereas >> before >> it quickly went down to 1e-15. >> >> The options in my command file are: >> >> -ksp_type bcgsl >> -pc_type bjacobi >> -sub_pc_type ilu >> -sub_pc_factor_levels 3 >> -sub_pc_factor_fill 6 >> >> >> The only thing I see in the Change notes are that the ILU defaults to >> shifting >> so that it's p.d. but I don't see an easy way to turn this off by the >> command >> line to see if that's the problem. I tried to do it in my program, but >> it's unclear >> if I did that correctly. >> >> Any suggestions? >> >> Thanks, Randy >
