On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:27 AM, TAY wee-beng <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 26/2/2016 11:32 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > >> On Feb 26, 2016, at 9:28 AM, TAY wee-beng <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have got a 3D code. When I ran with 48 procs and 11 million cells, it >>> runs for 83 min. When I ran with 96 procs and 22 million cells, it ran for >>> 99 min. >>> >> This is actually pretty good! >> > But if I'm not wrong, if I increase the no. of cells, the parallelism will > keep on decreasing. I hope it scales up to maybe 300 - 400 procs. > 100% efficiency does not happen, and here you get 83%. You could probably get that into the 90s depending on your algorithm, but this is pretty good. Matt > So it's not that parallel. I want to find out which part of the code I >>> need to improve. Also if PETsc and hypre is working well in parallel. >>> What's the best way to do it? >>> >> Run both with -log_summary and send the output for each case. This >> will show where the time is being spent and which parts are scaling less >> well. >> >> Barry >> > That's only for the PETSc part, right? So for other parts of the code, > including hypre part, I will not be able to find out. If so, what can I use > to check these parts? > >> I thought of doing profiling but if the code is optimized, I wonder if it >>> still works well. >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Yours sincerely, >>> >>> TAY wee-beng >>> >>> > -- 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
