Hi Fande,
I don't know, I am working and validating with a DEBUG version of PETSc,
and this "mwe" is a 30x30 matrix...
But I "hope" the parallel version is faster for large problems... if it
is not maybe it should be somewhat reviewed...
Eric
On 22/05/18 02:22 PM, Fande Kong wrote:
Hi Eric,
I am curious if the parallel symbolic factoriation is faster than
the sequential version? Do you have timing?
Fande,
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Eric Chamberland
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 22/05/18 02:03 PM, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
Hmm, why would
the resolution with *sequential* symbolic factorisation
gives ans err around 1e-6 instead of 1e-16 for parallel one
(when it works).
? One would think that doing a "sequential" symbolic
factorization won't affect the answer to this huge amount?
Perhaps this is the problem that needs to be addressed.
I do agree that this is a huge amount of difference... and if we
agree this is also a bug, than it means there are not one but two
bugs that deserve to be fixed...
Thanks,
Eric
