On Jan 28, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:29, Mark F. Adams <mark.adams at columbia.edu> > wrote: > GAMG does not repartition by default anymore -- it is very expensive. GAMG > does now do simple process aggregation on coarser grids if repartitioning is > not specified. > > Couldn't we at least do some cheap (e.g. greedy) repartitioning?
Yes > Or at least squish out empty ranks so that the coarser levels tend to be > nearby on the network? We do that now. > Would it make more sense to do this or to work on a "real" partitioner. I prefer to fold this into the new aggregation stuff. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20120129/9da527cc/attachment.htm>
