[deal.II] Re: a few questions about matrix-free

Hi Denis, I'm sure there is someone more knowledgable than me, but I'll take a crack at a couple of these: (2/3) Maybe I'm misunderstanding your circumstances, but if all you need is different update flags for different fields you can do that with a single MatrixFree object, but set different f

[deal.II] Re: How to apply boundary values for a particular point on the boundary instead of the whole boundary surface

Hi Hamed, I was in the same boat a few weeks ago. After reading through some of the other posts on this list (which Jean-Paul linked), I wrote the following method that you and maybe others will find useful. It takes in a vector containing the list of components of a field that need point const

[deal.II] Re: How to apply boundary values for a particular point on the boundary instead of the whole boundary surface

ts->set_inhomogeneity(nodeID,0.0); } } } } } } } On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-4, Stephen DeWitt wrote: > > Hi Hamed, > I was in the same boat a few weeks ago. After r

[deal.II] deal.II binary package won't open on Mac OS

Hello all, I've recently seen some issues opening the version 8.4.1 Mac OS binary package. After downloading the .dmg file and copying the application to the Applications folder, double-clicking it doesn't launch the terminal window like it should. The "verifying..." dialog pops up and then the

[deal.II] Segfault in EvaluatorTensorProduct::apply when AVX is enabled

Hello, I recently realized that I should be using "-march=native" flag for optimal performance of matrix-free codes. The application that I've been using works fine with just SSE2, but with AVX enabled I'm getting a segfault. Step-48 works fine, so I don't think it is an installation issue. The

Re: [deal.II] Segfault in EvaluatorTensorProduct::apply when AVX is enabled

is to wait until the pull request 3980 ( > https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/3980) gets merged, grab the newest > developer version because with that we will start using an external scratch > data array that always has the correct alignment. > > Best, > Martin > > On 20.02.20

Re: [deal.II] Segfault in EvaluatorTensorProduct::apply when AVX is enabled

tend the size to one. > > Could you please try with the updated deal.II version and report back in > case you have further problems? > > Thanks! > > Best, > Martin > > On 02/20/2017 11:01 PM, Stephen DeWitt wrote: > > Dear Martin, > Thank you, that makes se

[deal.II] Installation using Spack fails during 'ncurses' installation

Hello, I'm trying to install dealii on a shared AFS file system. Originally, I tried to install everything manually, which I had done successfully on our HPC cluster, but ran into a PETSc link error and decided to try Spack. I followed the instructions on the deal.II wiki, but installation stopp

[deal.II] Re: Installation using Spack fails during 'ncurses' installation

lot easier to install everything manually. You can >> also try candi, there is an option to build deal.II on a cluster. >> >> Best, >> >> Bruno >> >> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:19:36 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeWitt wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>&

Re: [deal.II] imposing symmetric boundary conditions on the axis of symmetry of a 2D domain

In that case, you should just be able to use zero-flux boundary conditions along the mirror plane. The way I typically picture it is that if you have the same thing happening on either side of a mirror plane, you can't have in-flow or out-flow. On a side note, depending on how far along you ar

[deal.II] Artifacts at the refinement level boundary for Step 48

t the source of that difference is). Thank you for any insight you can give. Best, Steve Stephen DeWitt Asst. Research Scientist PRISMS Center Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering University of Michigan -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum

Re: [deal.II] Artifacts at the refinement level boundary for Step 48

Dear Martin, Thank you for your quick reply. I tried as you suggested, and set the initial condition by computing a right hand side, and it lowered the difference between the initial condition and the first time step by about a factor of 5. So it helped, but didn't make a qualitative change. W

[deal.II] Research faculty opening at the University of Michigan

Hello, We have a research faculty opening at the University of Michigan that may be of interest to people on this list. The PRISMS Center at the University of Michigan is looking to hire an Assistant Research Scientist (a junior research faculty position) to continue development on PRISMS-Pla

[deal.II] Re: Research faculty opening at the University of Michigan

Sorry to anyone who attempted to follow the link in the previous post and landed on an empty page. The opening number changed, so the appropriate link is now: http://careers.umich.edu/job_detail/149216/asst_res_scientist Best, Steve On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 4:43:18 PM UTC-4, Stephen

[deal.II] Possible bug in the Jacobi preconditioner for MatrixFreeOperators::LaplaceOperator for vector fields

Hello, I've been trying to refactor my code to use the new MatrixFreeOperators, but I've run into a problem trying to use the Jacobi preconditioner with the MatrixFreeOperators::LaplaceOperator with a vector-valued variable. In short, I wrote a short code to solve a simple 2D Poisson problem. F

[deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

Hello all, A PRISMS-PF user recently posted to our forum that he was having an issue with the deal.ii package he got through apt-get on Ubuntu 17.10. The issue seems to be related to a missing shared object file for MUMPS. I

Re: [deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

tu). If this is indeed the case I will > ask for this to happen. > > Did you install just the library libdeal.ii, or also the development > package libdeal.ii-dev? > > Best, > Matthias > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, at 13:19 CDT, Stephen DeWitt > wrote:

Re: [deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

Hi Matthias, Thanks! I'll pass along the advice to fetch and build the development version and otherwise wait for the 18.04 release. Best, Steve On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 4:36:53 PM UTC-4, Matthias Maier wrote: > > Status update: > > - We missed the opportunity to do a rebuild for 17.10 [

[deal.II] Status of matrix-free CUDA support

Hello all, I'm interested to know what the status is for using CUDA with matrix free calculations. We have a PRISMS-PF user who is interested in GPU calculations, and I'd like to get a better idea of what would be involved in adding CUDA support on our end. So far I've read through the "CUDA Su

Re: [deal.II] How to restart a time dependent code from its breakpoint?

Dear Chucui, The file in the production code for ASPECT with checkpoint/restart is here: https://github.com/bangerth/aspect/blob/master/source/simulator/checkpoint_restart.cc If a second example would be helpful, we implemented checkpoint/restart in PRISMS-PF using a similar approach: https://git

[deal.II] Re: Status of matrix-free CUDA support

PU. If the CUDA support for deal.II is at the point where our code could take advantage of it, I'd be able to justify the investment to get access to a compatible machine. Thanks! Steve On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-4, Stephen DeWitt wrote: > > Hello all, > I'm int

Re: [deal.II] Re: Status of matrix-free CUDA support

e: > > Steve > > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-4, Stephen DeWitt wrote: >> >> So far I've read through the "CUDA Support" issue >> <https://github.com/dealii/dealii/issues/7037>, the "Roadmap for >> inclusion of G

[deal.II] Role of CUDAWrappers::MatrixFree::Data and CUDAWrappers::SharedData in CUDAWrappers::MatrixFree:cell_loop

Hello all, Following up from a previous post about where the GPU capabilities are, I've been going through the CUDA matrix-free matrix-vector product tests as Bruno suggested. For the most part

[deal.II] Number of DOFs after refinement depends on number of MPI processes (p:d:Triangulation)

Hello, I'm running matrix free calculations using a parallel::distributed::Triangulation (loosely based on step-48). One thing that I've noticed is the the final number of DOFs at the end of a simulation vary slightly depending on my number of MPI processes. For example, one run on 16 cores fin

[deal.II] Re: deal.II User and Developer Workshop: August 6-9, 2019

Dear Wolfgang and Timo, Would it be possible to record some or all of the presentations at the workshop? Due to a conflict I won't be able to attend, but I would still be very interested in hearing the talks/discussions at the workshop. Best, Steve On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 12:18:43 AM UT

[deal.II] Installation error on Haswell nodes on Cori at NERSC (failed AVX512 support)

Hello, I'm trying to install deal.II on the Haswell nodes on Cori at NERSC using the Intel compiler. I'm using deal.II version 9.0, because support for a few of the function calls I make were dropped in v9.1 and I haven't had a chance to modify the sections of the code. In my CMake command, I'm

Re: [deal.II] Installation error on Haswell nodes on Cori at NERSC (failed AVX512 support)

12 support? > > Best, > Martin > On 10.07.19 15:56, Stephen DeWitt wrote: > > Hello, > I'm trying to install deal.II on the Haswell nodes on Cori at NERSC using > the Intel compiler. I'm using deal.II version 9.0, because support for a > few of the function c