You are right about the queuing system. The job is submitted with a PBS script specifying the number of nodes/processors. On the cluster petsc is configured in a module environment which sets the appropriate flags for compilers/rules etc.
The same exact job script on the same exact nodes with a standard krylov method does not give any trouble but executes nicely on all processors (and also give the correct result). Therefore my suspicion is a missing flag in the mumps interface. Is this maybe rather a topic for the mumps-dev team? Best, Gunnar 2014-06-25 15:52 GMT+02:00 Dave May <[email protected]>: > This sounds weird. > > The launch line you provided doesn't include any information regarding how > many processors (nodes/nodes per core to use). I presume you are using a > queuing system. My guess is that there could be an issue with either (i) > your job script, (ii) the configuration of the job scheduler on the > machine, or (iii) the mpi installation on the machine. > > Have you been able to successfully run other petsc (or any mpi) codes with > the same launch options (2 nodes, 3 procs per node)? > > Cheers. > Dave > > > > > On 25 June 2014 15:44, Gunnar Jansen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> i try to solve a problem in parallel with MUMPS as the direct solver. As >> long as I run the program on only 1 node with 6 processors everything works >> fine! But using 2 nodes with 3 processors each gets mumps stuck in the >> factorization. >> >> For the purpose of testing I run the ex2.c on a resolution of 100x100 >> (which is of course way to small for a direct solver in parallel). >> >> The code is run with : >> mpirun ./ex2 -on_error_abort -pc_type lu -pc_factor_mat_solver_package >> mumps -ksp_type preonly -log_summary -options_left -m 100 -n 100 >> -mat_mumps_icntl_4 3 >> >> The petsc-configuration I used is: >> --prefix=/opt/Petsc/3.4.4.extended --with-mpi=yes >> --with-mpi-dir=/opt/Openmpi/1.9a/ --with-debugging=no --download-mumps >> --download-scalapack --download-parmetis --download-metis >> >> Is this common behavior? Or is there an error in the petsc configuration >> I am using here? >> >> Best, >> Gunnar >> > >
