On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:49 AM, "Miguel A. Fern?ndez" < miguel.fernandez at inria.fr> wrote:
> In any case, I would say that this usage of the terminology "application > ordering" is not fully coherent with the discussion of section 2.3.1, > where (as far as I understood) "application ordering" is supposed to be > the original ordering of the application data (mesh veticies, dof, etc?) > before optimal > distribution of it (or, e.g., by calling the program in a single > processor). > Hmm, I'm not sure how to fix that. You can repartition starting from any ordering. I think the names "PETSc ordering" and "application ordering" are often unclear, but I mostly avoid use of AO entirely in favor of more direct communication. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20130326/b76fecf4/attachment.html>
