Hello again,
I played with BoomerAMG and ML (for the 2D problem with a reasonable
condition number), and so far, they haven't worked (the residual eventually
diverges). The options that I am using are (for instance)
PC pc;
KSPGetPC(ksp,&pc);
PetscOptionsSetValue("-ksp_type", "gmres");
KSPSetOperators(ksp, A_, A_, SAME_NONZERO_PATTERN);
PetscOptionsSetValue("-ksp_initial_guess_nonzero", "true");
PCSetType(pc, PCML);
PetscOptionsSetValue("-pc_ml_maxNlevels", "3");
PetscOptionsSetValue("-mg_coarse_ksp_type","richardson");
PetscOptionsSetValue("-mg_coarse_pc_type","sor");
PetscOptionsSetValue("-mg_coarse_pc_sor_its","8");
PetscOptionsSetValue("-ksp_monitor","1");
KSPSetFromOptions(ksp);
I have replaced KSP with bcgsl, fgmres, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, the following works like a charm:
PC pc;
KSPGetPC(ksp,&pc);
PCSetType(pc, PCMG);
KSPSetOperators(ksp, A_, A_, SAME_NONZERO_PATTERN);
PetscOptionsSetValue("-ksp_initial_guess_nonzero", "true");
KSPSetType(ksp, KSPGMRES);
KSPGMRESSetRestart(ksp, 100);
KSPSetFromOptions(ksp);
Regards,
Karthik.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Smith" <[email protected]>
To: "PETSc users list" <petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 9:14:05 PM
Subject: Re: [petsc-users] Multigrid
On May 1, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Karthik Duraisamy wrote:
> So as I understand it, GMRES is used as a preconditioner and as a solver when
> I use PCMG with defaults. If this is the case, I should be able to recreate
> this set up without the PCMG. Any pointers as to how this can be done?
>
> Also, yes indeed, my mesh is completely unstructured, so I will have to use
> ml or boomeramg.
>
> The problems that I am attempting involve RANS of compressible turbulent
> combustion (finite volume, steady). The high condition numbers are because of
> the extreme grid stretching and stiff source terms (in the turbulence and
> combustion model).
With a condition number like that I wouldn't even consider using double
precision, I think you would just be computing meaningless noise. With
petsc-dev you can use quad precision ./configure --with-precision=__float128
using recent GNU compilers
(no we haven't tested the gfortran sides of things).
Barry
> I have been trying a reduced problem in these 2D test cases, in which the
> condition number is only 1e7.
>
> Thanks,
> Karthik.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark F. Adams" <mark.adams at columbia.edu>
> To: "PETSc users list" <petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:50:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [petsc-users] Multigrid
>
>
> Also, note that PCMG can not create coarse grid spaces for an (MPI)AIJ
> matrix. If you use regular grids (DA?) then PETSc can construct geometric
> multigrid coarse grid spaces, although I don't know if PCMG will construct
> these for you (I don't think it will and I can see from your output that PCMG
> just used one grid). 'ml', hypre' and 'gamg' (a native AMG solver) will do
> real AMG solvers for you. All three can work on a similar class of problems.
>
>
> Also, you mention that you have a condition number of 1.e20. That is
> astronomical for such a small problem. How did you compute that number? Do
> you know where the ill-conditioning comes from? Is this an elliptic operator?
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> On May 1, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Karthik Duraisamy < dkarthik at stanford.edu
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> The following was output for the very first iteration whereas what I had
> attached earlier was output every iteration. I am still a bit perplexed
> because PCMG drops the residual like a rock (after the first few iterations
> whereas with no PCMG, it is very slow)
>
>
>
> Because the smoother IS the solver you were using before. Just like I said
> last time, what you are doing is
> wrapping up the same solver you used before, sticking it in another GMRES
> loop, and only looking at the
> outer loop. This has nothing to do with MG.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
> KSP Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: gmres
> GMRES: restart=100, using Classical (unmodified) Gram-Schmidt
> Orthogonalization with no iterative refinement
> GMRES: happy breakdown tolerance 1e-30
> maximum iterations=1, initial guess is zero
> using preconditioner applied to right hand side for initial guess
> tolerances: relative=0.01, absolute=1e-08, divergence=1e+10
> left preconditioning
> using DEFAULT norm type for convergence test
> PC Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: mg
> MG: type is MULTIPLICATIVE, levels=1 cycles=v
> Cycles per PCApply=1
> Not using Galerkin computed coarse grid matrices
> Coarse grid solver -- level -------------------------------
> KSP Object: (mg_levels_0_) 8 MPI processes
> type not yet set
> maximum iterations=1, initial guess is zero
> tolerances: relative=1e-05, absolute=1e-50, divergence=10000
> left preconditioning
> using DEFAULT norm type for convergence test
> PC Object: (mg_levels_0_) 8 MPI processes
> type not yet set
> linear system matrix = precond matrix:
> Matrix Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: mpiaij
> rows=75000, cols=75000
> total: nonzeros=4427800, allocated nonzeros=4427800
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node (on process 0) routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Knepley" < knepley at gmail.com >
> To: "PETSc users list" < petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:22:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [petsc-users] Multigrid
>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Karthik Duraisamy < dkarthik at stanford.edu
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Sorry (and thanks for the reply). I've attached the no multigrid case. I
> didn't include it because (at least to the untrained eye, everything looks
> the same).
>
>
>
> Did you send all the output from the MG case? There must be a PC around it.
> By default its GMRES, so there would be
> an extra GMRES loop compared to the case without MG.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
> Regards,
> Karthik
>
> KSP Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: gmres
> GMRES: restart=100, using Classical (unmodified) Gram-Schmidt
> Orthogonalization with no iterative refinement
> GMRES: happy breakdown tolerance 1e-30
> maximum iterations=1
> using preconditioner applied to right hand side for initial guess
> tolerances: relative=1e-05, absolute=1e-50, divergence=1e+10
> left preconditioning
> using nonzero initial guess
> using PRECONDITIONED norm type for convergence test
> PC Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: bjacobi
> block Jacobi: number of blocks = 8
> Local solve is same for all blocks, in the following KSP and PC objects:
> KSP Object: (sub_) 1 MPI processes
> type: preonly
> maximum iterations=10000, initial guess is zero
> tolerances: relative=1e-05, absolute=1e-50, divergence=10000
> left preconditioning
> using NONE norm type for convergence test
> PC Object: (sub_) 1 MPI processes
> type: ilu
> ILU: out-of-place factorization
> 0 levels of fill
> tolerance for zero pivot 1e-12
> using diagonal shift to prevent zero pivot
> matrix ordering: natural
> factor fill ratio given 1, needed 1
> Factored matrix follows:
> Matrix Object: 1 MPI processes
> type: seqaij
> rows=9015, cols=9015
> package used to perform factorization: petsc
> total: nonzeros=517777, allocated nonzeros=517777
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
> linear system matrix = precond matrix:
> Matrix Object: 1 MPI processes
> type: seqaij
> rows=9015, cols=9015
> total: nonzeros=517777, allocated nonzeros=517777
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
> linear system matrix = precond matrix:
> Matrix Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: mpiaij
> rows=75000, cols=75000
> total: nonzeros=4427800, allocated nonzeros=4427800
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node (on process 0) routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Knepley" < knepley at gmail.com >
> To: "PETSc users list" < petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:15:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [petsc-users] Multigrid
>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Karthik Duraisamy < dkarthik at stanford.edu
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Barry,
>
> Thank you for your super quick response. I have attached the output of
> ksp_view and it is practically the same as that when I don't use PCMG. The
> part I don't understand is how PCMG able to function at the zero grid level
> and still produce a much better convergence than when using the default PC.
> Is there any additional smoothing or interpolation going on?
>
>
>
> You only included one output, so I have no way of knowing what you used
> before. However, this is running GMRES/ILU.
>
>
> Also, for Algebraic Multigrid, would you recommend BoomerAMG or ML ?
>
>
>
> They are different algorithms. Its not possible to say generally that one is
> better. Try them both.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
> Best regards,
> Karthik.
>
> type: mg
> MG: type is MULTIPLICATIVE, levels=1 cycles=v
> Cycles per PCApply=1
> Not using Galerkin computed coarse grid matrices
> Coarse grid solver -- level -------------------------------
> KSP Object: (mg_levels_0_) 8 MPI processes
> type: gmres
> GMRES: restart=30, using Classical (unmodified) Gram-Schmidt
> Orthogonalization with no iterative refinement
> GMRES: happy breakdown tolerance 1e-30
> maximum iterations=1, initial guess is zero
> tolerances: relative=1e-05, absolute=1e-50, divergence=10000
> left preconditioning
> using PRECONDITIONED norm type for convergence test
> PC Object: (mg_levels_0_) 8 MPI processes
> type: bjacobi
> block Jacobi: number of blocks = 8
> Local solve is same for all blocks, in the following KSP and PC objects:
> KSP Object: (mg_levels_0_sub_) 1 MPI processes
> type: preonly
> maximum iterations=10000, initial guess is zero
> tolerances: relative=1e-05, absolute=1e-50, divergence=10000
> left preconditioning
> using NONE norm type for convergence test
> PC Object: (mg_levels_0_sub_) 1 MPI processes
> type: ilu
> ILU: out-of-place factorization
> 0 levels of fill
> tolerance for zero pivot 1e-12
> using diagonal shift to prevent zero pivot
> matrix ordering: natural
> factor fill ratio given 1, needed 1
> Factored matrix follows:
> Matrix Object: 1 MPI processes
> type: seqaij
> rows=9015, cols=9015
> package used to perform factorization: petsc
> total: nonzeros=517777, allocated nonzeros=517777
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
> linear system matrix = precond matrix:
> Matrix Object: 1 MPI processes
> type: seqaij
> rows=9015, cols=9015
> total: nonzeros=517777, allocated nonzeros=517777
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
> linear system matrix = precond matrix:
> Matrix Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: mpiaij
> rows=75000, cols=75000
> total: nonzeros=4427800, allocated nonzeros=4427800
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node (on process 0) routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
> linear system matrix = precond matrix:
> Matrix Object: 8 MPI processes
> type: mpiaij
> rows=75000, cols=75000
> total: nonzeros=4427800, allocated nonzeros=4427800
> total number of mallocs used during MatSetValues calls =0
> using I-node (on process 0) routines: found 3476 nodes, limit used is 5
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry Smith" < bsmith at mcs.anl.gov >
> To: "PETSc users list" < petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:39:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [petsc-users] Multigrid
>
>
> On May 1, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Karthik Duraisamy wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been using PETSc for a couple of years with good success, but lately
>> as my linear problems have become stiffer (condition numbers of the order of
>> 1.e20), I am looking to use better preconditioners. I tried using PCMG with
>> all the default options (i.e., I just specified my preconditioner as PCMG
>> and did not add any options to it) and I am immediately seeing better
>> convergence.
>>
>> What I am not sure of is why? I would like to know more about the default
>> parameters (the manual is not very explicit) and more importantly, want to
>> know why it is working even when I haven't specified any grid levels and
>> coarse grid operators. Any
>> help in this regard will be appreciated.
>
> First run with -ksp_view to see what solver it is actually using.
>
> Barry
>
>>
>> Also, ultimately I want to use algebraic multigrid so is PCML a better
>> option than BoomerAMG? I tried BoomerAMG with mixed results.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Karthik
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> =======================================
>> Karthik Duraisamy
>> Assistant Professor (Consulting)
>> Durand Building Rm 357
>> Dept of Aeronautics and Astronautics
>> Stanford University
>> Stanford CA 94305
>>
>> Phone: 650-721-2835
>> Web: www.stanford.edu/~dkarthik
>> =======================================
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
