Hailong: I've never seen this type of error from MUMPS. It seems programming bug. Are you sure smaller problem runs correctly? Use valgrind check it.
Hong > I got the error from MUMPS. > > When I run MUMPS (which requring scalapack) with matrix size (n) = 30620, > nonzeros (nz) = 785860, > I could run it. And could get result. > But when I run it with > nz=3112820 > n =61240 > > > I am getting the following error > > > 17 - <NO ERROR MESSAGE> : Could not convert index 1140850688 into a pointer > The index may be an incorrect argument. > Possible sources of this problem are a missing "include 'mpif.h'", > a misspelled MPI object (e.g., MPI_COM_WORLD instead of MPI_COMM_WORLD) > or a misspelled user variable for an MPI object (e.g., > com instead of comm). > [17] [] Aborting Program! > > > > Do you know what happened? > Is that possible it is running out of memory? > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Hong Zhang <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Direct solvers often require large memory for storing matrix factors. >> As Jed suggests, you may try superlu_dist. >> >> With mumps, I notice you use parallel analysis, which is relative new in >> mumps. >> What happens if you use default sequential analysis with >> different matrix orderings? >> I usually use matrix ordering '-mat_mumps_icntl_7 2'. >> >> Also, you can increase fill ratio, >> -mat_mumps_icntl_14 <20>: ICNTL(14): percentage of estimated workspace >> increase (None) >> i.e., default ration is 20, you may try 50? (I notice that you already use >> 30). >> >> It seems you use 16 CPUs for "a mere couple thousands >> elements" problems, and mumps "silently freezes". I do not have this type >> of experience with mumps. I usually can solve sparse matrix of size >> 10k with 1 cpu using mumps. >> When mumps runs out of memory or gets other problems, it terminates >> execution and dumps out error message, >> not freezes. >> Something is wrong here. Use a debugger and figuring out where it freezes. >> >> Hong >> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> > -pc_type lu -pc_factor_mat_solver_package superlu_dist >> > >> > On Dec 21, 2011 6:19 AM, "Dominik Szczerba" <dominik at itis.ethz.ch> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I am successfully solving my indefinite systems with MUMPS but only >> >> for very small problems. To give a feeling, a mere couple thousands >> >> elements. If I only double the problem size, it silently freezes, even >> >> with max verbosity via the control parameters. Did anyone succeed here >> >> with big problems? Any recommendations for a drop-in replacement for >> >> MUMPS? >> >> >> >> Thanks for any hints, >> >> Dominik >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Options used: >> >> -mat_mumps_icntl_4 3 -mat_mumps_icntl_28 2 -mat_mumps_icntl_29 >> >> >> >> Output: >> >> >> >> ****** FACTORIZATION STEP ******** >> >> >> >> >> >> ?GLOBAL STATISTICS PRIOR NUMERICAL FACTORIZATION ... >> >> ?NUMBER OF WORKING PROCESSES ? ? ? ? ? ? ?= ? ? ? ? ?16 >> >> ?OUT-OF-CORE OPTION (ICNTL(22)) ? ? ? ? ? = ? ? ? ? ? 0 >> >> ?REAL SPACE FOR FACTORS ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? = ?1438970073 >> >> ?INTEGER SPACE FOR FACTORS ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?= ? ?11376442 >> >> ?MAXIMUM FRONTAL SIZE (ESTIMATED) ? ? ? ? = ? ? ? 16868 >> >> ?NUMBER OF NODES IN THE TREE ? ? ? ? ? ? ?= ? ? ? 43676 >> >> ?Convergence error after scaling for ONE-NORM (option 7/8) ? = 0.21D+01 >> >> ?Maximum effective relaxed size of S ? ? ? ? ? ? ?= ? 231932340 >> >> ?Average effective relaxed size of S ? ? ? ? ? ? ?= ? 182366303 >> >> >> >> ?REDISTRIB: TOTAL DATA LOCAL/SENT ? ? ? ? = ? ? 1509215 ? ?22859750 >> >> ?GLOBAL TIME FOR MATRIX DISTRIBUTION ? ? ? = ? ? ?0.8270 >> >> ?** Memory relaxation parameter ( ICNTL(14) ?) ? ? ? ? ? ?: ? ? ? ?35 >> >> ?** Rank of processor needing largest memory in facto ? ? : ? ? ? ? 0 >> >> ?** Space in MBYTES used by this processor for facto ? ? ?: ? ? ?2017 >> >> ?** Avg. Space in MBYTES per working proc during facto ? ?: ? ? ?1618 > > > > > -- > Hailong
