This message finally appeared in the spam filters for the libmesh-devel
mailing list, but I believe it has already been discussed.
--
John
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Nestola Maria Giuseppina Chiara <
maria.giuseppina.chiara.nest...@usi.ch> wrote:
> Dear all,
> we are trying to build para
Dear all,
we are trying to build parallel meshes. What i need is that each processor has
just its own mesh.
We are coupling a fem code with FD code thus we need to guarantee also the same
partition.
We have already implemented a routine to do this but we have some questions.
1)
If our setup
Roy Stogner writes:
> Just run ./configure without "--enable-parmesh", and declare objects
> to be of type Mesh, which will end up as a typedef of SerialMesh.
> You'll still need to keep your own code (e.g. node redistibution)
> consistent between processors, but you won't have to worry about b
On Sun, 18 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Should I declare all meshes as SerialMesh?
Just run ./configure without "--enable-parmesh", and declare objects
to be of type Mesh, which will end up as a typedef of SerialMesh.
You'll still need to keep your own code (e.g. node redistibution)
cons
Roy
Thanks for your answer.
Roy Stogner writes:
> Don't feel bad - I run into segmentation faults *before* shifting mesh
> nodes. :-P ParallelMesh still has unfixed bugs that are triggered by
> element coarsening, it's not well tested enough in general, and I
> don't know when anyone's goin
On Sat, 17 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here are some questions concerning the parallel mesh. I ran into segmentation
> faults after I shifted mesh nodes.
Don't feel bad - I run into segmentation faults *before* shifting mesh
nodes. :-P ParallelMesh still has unfixed bugs that are trig
Hi
Here are some questions concerning the parallel mesh. I ran into segmentation
faults after I shifted mesh nodes. The only reason I could find was a
assertion failure on line 644 in mesh_communication_global_indices.C.
Unfortunately I was not able to debug that problem any further.
If I underst
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Benjamin Kirk wrote:
> Specifically, the current mesh format provides no mechanism for
> specifying the subdomain id, or the p level for a given element
> (although the latter should probably be associated with an
> EquationSystems object instead of the mesh).
I disagree - des
In developing the new mesh file format, and based on some previous
discussion with Roy, a few limitations with the current format have become
clear. Specifically, the current mesh format provides no mechanism for
specifying the subdomain id, or the p level for a given element (although
the latter
