On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Matthieu Vitse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Le 29 sept. 2017 à 17:43, Barry Smith <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Or is your matrix generator code sequential and cannot generate the full > matrix so you want to generate chunks at a time and save to disk then load > them? Better for you to refactor your code to work in parallel in > generating the whole thing (since you can already generate parts the > refactoring shouldn't be terribly difficult). > > > Thanks for your answer. > > The matrix is already generated in parallel, but we want to keep control > on the decomposition which conflicts with directly using PCASM. > Please explain this statement with an example. When using MatLoad(), you are in control of the partitions, although not of the row order. Also, I am confused by your use of the word "distributed". We use it to mean an object, like a Mat that exists on several processes in a coordinated way. Thanks, Matt > That’s why we would really like to work only with the distributed > matrices. Are there some issues that would prevent me from doing that ? > Moreover, ASM is a first step, we would like then to use those matrices for > multi-preconditioning our problem, and take into account MPCs (as a > consequence we really need to know the decomposition). > > Thanks, > > — > Matt > -- 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 https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
