Hong,the input files do not seem to be accessible. What are the command line option? (I don't see a "rap" or "scale" in the source).
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Hong <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > Below is the copy of my email sent to you on Feb 27: > > I implemented scalable MatPtAP and did comparisons of three > implementations using ex56.c on alcf cetus machine (this machine has > small memory, 1GB/core): > - nonscalable PtAP: use an array of length PN to do dense axpy > - scalable PtAP: do sparse axpy without use of PN array > - hypre PtAP. > > The results are attached. Summary: > - nonscalable PtAP is 2x faster than scalable, 8x faster than hypre PtAP > - scalable PtAP is 4x faster than hypre PtAP > - hypre uses less memory (see job.ne399.n63.np1000.sh) > > Based on above observation, I set the default PtAP algorithm as > 'nonscalable'. > When PN > local estimated nonzero of C=PtAP, then switch default to > 'scalable'. > User can overwrite default. > > For the case of np=8000, ne=599 (see job.ne599.n500.np8000.sh), I get > MatPtAP 3.6224e+01 (nonscalable for small mats, scalable > for larger ones) > scalable MatPtAP 4.6129e+01 > hypre 1.9389e+02 > > This work in on petsc-master. Give it a try. If you encounter any problem, > let me know. > > Hong > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (Hong), what is the current state of optimizing RAP for scaling? >> >> Nate, is driving 3D elasticity problems at scaling with GAMG and we are >> working out performance problems. They are hitting problems at ~1.5B dof >> problems on a basic Cray (XC30 I think). >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> > >
