Thanks do you use a petscrc file or any file with PETSc options in it for the run?
Thanks please send me the exact PETSc commit you are built off so I can see the line numbers in our source when things go bad. Barry > On Nov 11, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Please send me the full output. This is nuts and should be reported once we > understand it better to NERSc as something to be fixed. When I pay $60 > million in taxes to a computing center I expect something that works fine for > free on my laptop to work also there. > > Barry > > > On Nov 10, 2015, at 7:51 AM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I ran an 8 processor job on Edison of a small code for a short run (just a > > linear solve) and got 37 Mb of output! > > > > Here is a 'Petsc' grep. > > > > Perhaps we should build an ignore file for things that we believe is a > > false positive. > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am more optimistic about valgrind than Mark. I first try valgrind and > > if that fails to be helpful then use the debugger. valgrind has the > > advantage that it finds the FIRST place that something is wrong, while in > > the debugger it is kind of late at the crash. > > > > Valgrind should not be noisy, if it is then the applications/libraries > > should be cleaned up so that they are valgrind clean and then valgrind is > > useful. > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > BTW, I think that our advice for segv is use a debugger. DDT or > > > Totalview, and gdb if need be, will get you right to the source code and > > > will get 90% of bugs diagnosed. Valgrind is noisy and cumbersome to use > > > but can diagnose 90% of the other 10%. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Denis Davydov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Jose, > > > > > > > On 3 Nov 2015, at 12:20, Jose E. Roman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am answering the SLEPc-related questions: > > > > - Having different number of iterations when changing the number of > > > > processes is normal. > > > the change in iterations i mentioned are for different preconditioners, > > > but the same number of MPI processes. > > > > > > > > > > - Yes, if you do not destroy the EPS solver, then the preconditioner > > > > would be reused. > > > > > > > > Regarding the segmentation fault, I have no clue. Not sure if this is > > > > related to GAMG or not. Maybe running under valgrind could provide more > > > > information. > > > will try that. > > > > > > Denis. > > > > > > > > > <petsc_val.gz> > > > <outval.gz>
