No,

On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:33 PM, John Mousel <john.mousel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> This is a flow solver Poisson equation. Is the coordinate functionality 
> applicable?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Mark F. Adams <mark.adams at columbia.edu> 
> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:14 PM, John Mousel <john.mousel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Can you comment on a GASM type approach to find a solution for the null 
>> space? I notice that the null vectors that successfully make the true 
>> residual drop are only complicated in a very thin band around the interface. 
>> This band is easy to identify using a level set. Other than that, the null 
>> space vector has a low frequency variation. My thought was to break the 
>> matrix into two sub-matrices, and somehow apply GAMG as a preconditioner on 
>> the far matrix, and ILU on the interface-adjacent matrix. Is this dumb or a 
>> complete misunderstanding of GASM?
>> 
> 
> The null space in GAMG is not a projection, it does not have to be exact.  Do 
> you try using the 6 RBM or giving GAMG coordinates?
> 
> Also, you might try not smoothing the (-pc_gamg_nsmooths 0).  Unsymetric 
> matrices can work better this way.
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM, John Mousel <john.mousel at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> I've wanted to scrap this approach for a long time, but moving away from 
>> these GFM-type treatments is not a choice that I've been allowed to follow 
>> through on for various reasons which are out of my control.
>> 
>> Unless there are some clever tricks to characterize the null space or to 
>> keep preconditioners compatible with the null space, the folks making the 
>> decisions might have to reconsider. It doesn't matter how sexy a method 
>> looks if it requires a solve and that solve cannot be done efficiently.
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20130321/7ad22948/attachment-0001.html>

Reply via email to