> On Nov 15, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > > "Smith, Barry F." <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:38 AM, Mark Lohry <mlo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I've found ILU(0) or (1) to be working well for my problem, but the petsc >>> implementation is serial only. Running with -pc_type hypre -pc_hypre_type >>> pilut with default settings has considerably worse convergence. I've tried >>> using -pc_hypre_pilut_factorrowsize (number of actual elements in row) to >>> trick it into doing ILU(0), to no effect. >>> >>> Is there any way to recover classical ILU(k) from pilut? >>> >>> Hypre's docs state pilut is no longer supported, and Euclid should be used >>> for anything moving forward. pc_hypre_boomeramg has options for Euclid >>> smoothers. Any hope of a pc_hypre_type euclid? >> >> Not unless someone outside the PETSc team decides to put it back in. > > PETSc used to have a Euclid interface. My recollection is that Barry > removed it because users were finding too many bugs in Euclid and > upstream wasn't fixing them. A contributed revival of the interface > won't fix the upstream problem.
The hypre team now claims they care about Euclid. But given the limitations of ILU in parallel I can't imagine anyone cares all that much.
