Looks like Pastix is running with different options hence different performance.
Barry On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Xiangdong Liang wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Xiangdong Liang <xdliang at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello PETSc team, >>> >>> I was using PaStiX within petsc 3.1-p8. Today, I am trying PaStiX >>> within petsc-dev. However, For the same code, solving the same linear >>> system takes longer time (120s vs 90s) in petsc-dev. Both are compiled >>> with debugging mode off. Is it possible that the newer PaStiX is >>> slower than old version? or due to some options in compiling? >> >> >> It is likely the options are not exactly the same, meaning the ordering is >> different, >> etc. Did you check everything wiht -ksp_view and -ksp_monitor? > > I use ksp_view, ksp_monitor options and same -pc_factor_zeropivot > 1e-12, the dev version is still slower. One difference I see from > pastix_verbose is the option of Pastix: > > In pets-3.1: I have > > DISTRIBUTED : Not defined > FLUIDBOX : Not defined > METIS : Not defined > > > While in petsc-dev, I have > > DISTRIBUTED : Defined > METIS : Not defined > WITH_SCOTCH : Defined > > > However, I do not understand these options. Could that be the reason? > > Xiangdong > >> >> Matt >> >>> >>> Best, >>> Xiangdong >>> >>> PS. I cannot use PaStiX in 3.2 because in the runtime, PaStiX crashed >>> due to missing of the option -DWITHSCOTCH during compiling. It was >>> reported before by one user and fixed in petsc-dev, but not in >>> petsc-3.2-p5. >>> >>> http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/2011-March/008356.html >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
