Re: [Opm] OPM Release

Hi! It is not clear what you would like instructions for, if you need to get started with OPM Flow we recommend obtaining the program using our installation instructions https://opm-project.org/?page_id=36 and the comprehensive manual: https://opm-project.org/?page_id=955 There are video

Re: [Opm] 11th Comparative Solution Project (Geological carbon storage)

Hi, Thanks for your interest! We plan to enter the SPE11 CSP with a team from NORCE and SINTEF. OPM Flow has been used to do some preliminary work for setting up the CSP, and our intention is to make a serious effort on this. You or your team can of course also enter the CSP using OPM Flow!

[Opm] Removal of opm-material complete

Dear OPM community, The opm-material module has now been merged into opm-common, as discussed yesterday. Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

[Opm] Important module structure change: opm-material folding into opm-common

Dear OPM community, Tomorrow, Friday December 9 2022, at 12 CET, we will merge the following PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-common/pull/3234 as well as companion PRs in opm-models and opm-simulators. From that point, the opm-material repository will be deprecated, and all its code will be moved

[Opm] OPM release 2022.10

Dear OPM community, It is my pleasure to announce that the binary packages for the 2022.10 OPM release are now available for RHEL 7 and 8, as well as for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS (code name Jammy Jellyfish) and 20.04 LTS (code name Focal Fossa). The Ubuntu packages may be downloaded from the OPM

[Opm] Second release candidate for release 2022.10 is available

Dear all, The rc2 release candidate for the upcoming release is ready for testing! You can check out the release candidate from the github repos using the tag   release/2022.10/rc2 or use binary packages for Ubuntu Linux versions 20.04 and 22.04. To test the binary packages, follow the

[Opm] First release candidate ready for 2022.10

Dear all, The rc1 release candidate for the upcoming release is ready for testing! You can check out the release candidate from the github repos using the tag   release/2022.10/rc1 or use binary packages for Ubuntu Linux versions 20.04 and 22.04. To test the binary packages, follow the

Re: [Opm] Upcoming release 2022.10

manager this time? Cheers, Markus On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 01:48:49PM +, Atgeirr Rasmussen wrote: > Dear OPM community, > > It is time to create the next OPM release, we intend to follow this schedule, > all days in October: > > Monday 17: Final merges to master before

Re: [Opm] Dropping DUNE 2.6 support for OPM 2022.10?

Hi, Circling back to Arne Morten's point, that we would have to backport Dune and put it in our own ppa to use the newer Dune releases, how much work would that be? And if we did that, could/should we skip straight to Dune 2.8 or even 2.9? If we set as a goal to: - Use and require as new Dune

[Opm] Upcoming release 2022.10

Dear OPM community, It is time to create the next OPM release, we intend to follow this schedule, all days in October: Monday 17: Final merges to master before branching, freeze the master branch. Wednesday 19: Create release branches, unfreeze the master branch. Monday 24: First release

[Opm] OPM release 2021.10, release candidate 1

Dear all, The first release candidate for OPM release 2021.10 is now available for testing. It is available as binary packages for Ubuntu Linux versions 18.04 and 20.04. To test the binary packages, follow the normal installation instructions at the OPM website,

[Opm] Release 2021.10 feature freeze

Dear all, The release branches have been created, and a feature freeze is in effect for them. Bugfixes may still be included in the release, but no more new features. The master branch is open to new features as normal. We hope to have a release candidate ready on Monday. Atgeirr

[Opm] Reminder: release 2021.10 feature freeze today

Dear all, The release branches will be created this afternoon. Features should be merged before that if you want it to be part of the release. Jenkins usually gets very busy on days like this, so get your PRs in early! Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list

[Opm] Release 2021.10 timeline

Dear all, The next OPM release, 2021.10, is coming soon! Here is a preliminary timeline for the release process: - Feature freeze: Thursday October 14. Release branches will be created at this point. - First release candidate: Monday October 18. - Final release: Monday November 1.

Re: [Opm] Suggestion: new debug configuration

Hi all, I agree with Joakim that it is a good idea to add DEBUGF, and think that suggestion should be followed through. Some comments: - I think that the default configuration should print something useful. - It should also be possible to turn off and on via the command line. The full

Re: [Opm] Parallel output in OPM Flow

Hi all, I will try to answer the questions to the best of my knowledge. I will also ask someone from INRIA to joint this list, to be able to answer directly. > Nice to hear that there is some work on the output layer. I just have some > questions. > Can you please tell us what open source

[Opm] Parallel output in OPM Flow

Dear OPM community, The current implementation of OPM Flow performs all I/O operations sequentially, also for parallel runs. While this works well for now, it has the potential to become a bottleneck for running large cases in parallel. In the ACROSS project (see https://www.acrossproject.eu

Re: [Opm] Use external mesh with Flow OPM and unstructured meshes

ALUGrid class. Do you make any use of this class in OPM? Thanks. Best, Antoine > On Nov 17, 2020, at 07:37, Atgeirr Rasmussen <mailto:atgeirr.rasmus...@sintef.no>> wrote: > > Hi Antoine, > > The trick you used does not tell OPM in any way that the grid is tetrahedral &

Re: [Opm] Use external mesh with Flow OPM and unstructured meshes

Hi Antoine, The trick you used does not tell OPM in any way that the grid is tetrahedral or hexahedral, it just provides the necessary data as a soup of volumes and connections, and not as a proper grid. The VTK output assumes that we have a proper grid. Did the simulation produce expected

Re: [Opm] Use external mesh with Flow OPM and unstructured meshes

. - Could you explain in more details how to export the grid to OPM (using NNC) from MRST please? - Where should I look in the OPM code to implement the reading of an external mesh? In opm-grid? Thank you in advance. Best, Antoine > On Sep 30, 2020, at 02:45, Atgeirr Rasmussen >

Re: [Opm] ParMETIS error on HPC

Hi Antoine! Our partitioning scheme starts with the whole graph on a single process, so indeed this would be a "bad" starting partition. The partitioning we end up with does not seem any worse though, although for very large process counts, this could become a bottleneck. I am a little

Re: [Opm] Use external mesh with Flow OPM and unstructured meshes

Hi Antoine, For OPM Flow, the computational mesh is always generated based on the DATA file. We support both simple cartesian grids as you have observed, and more complex corner-point grids. There is a very brief explanation on page 277 of the OPM Flow reference manual (2020.04 version). (See

Re: [Opm] File formats

Alf, My initial thoughts on the issues you raise are: 1. (Post-processor compatibility.) A new format could be implemented in both OPM Flow and Resinsight, making it useful rather quickly. 2. (Write only at end of run.) I assume this can be resolved by wasting a little space: initially

Re: [Opm] 2020.04 release - it is for real

Dear all, I would just say thank you to Joakim for his effort in managing the release! Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

Re: [Opm] OPM Flow multi-node simulations stuck at domain decomposition step

Hi Yogi, Lots of things have changed in Flow for the initialization in parallel recently. Could you try to check out the previous release (2019.10) and check if you see the same problems? Atgeirr Frå: Opm på vegne av Markus Blatt Sendt: onsdag 11. mars 2020

[Opm] Updated compiler and library version requirements

Dear OPM community, At the recent OPM meeting, it was decided to require newer versions of some libraries and compilers for building OPM Flow going forward. The new requirements are: - C++ compiler with C++17 support (gcc minimum version 7). - Dune version 2.6 or newer. These requirements

Re: [Opm] Dependencies revisited

Despite what I initially wrote (that I want to increase the requirements), if we turn away potential users by this, that would be a good reason to NOT bump the requirements. Arne Morten's message implies that we can still provide binary packages for new releases (i.e. 2020.04 and 2020.10 etc.)

Re: [Opm] Dependencies revisited

Hi! I support increasing the Dune dependency to 2.6. With a minimum GCC version of 8.3 we can adopt C++17 and drop several boost libraries, but not yet all. Atgeirr Frå: Opm på vegne av Alf Birger Rustad Sendt: tysdag 28. januar 2020 09:13 Til:

Re: [Opm] ecl_summary

Hi Ogi, The application "ecl_summary" is from the libecl library, which is no longer a prerequisite for OPM Flow (since the latest release). You can still install libecl and get the application, or use the new "summary" application suggested by Torbjørn. Atgeirr

Re: [Opm] Can't find opm-simulators on Ubuntu 18.10

The web site was stating that 18.10 was supported with binary packages, which is not true for the latest release for the reason stated by Arne Morten. The information on the web site has been corrected. I am sorry for any confusion this caused! Atgeirr Frå:

Re: [Opm] OPM installation

Hello Patricia, Did you successfully install an Ubuntu VM? Verify by starting the VM (using "vagrant ssh" if you used vagrant to create it) and running the "uname -a" command, on my computer I get the output Linux ubuntu-cosmic 4.18.0-17-generic #18-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 13 14:34:40 UTC 2019

Re: [Opm] Minimum version of dependencies after new release

Hi all, I agree that we should do this (unless other disadvantages come to light). I'd say that the loss of Ubuntu 18.04 LTS as a supported target is less of a problem than it appears, since that version provides a faulty MPI implementation so we cannot provide MPI packages for it anyway. Are

[Opm] Module renamed

Dear all, In preparation for the upcoming 2019.10 release, the module "ewoms" has been renamed "opm-models". The repository on github has been renamed, but the old name will continue to work for some time. Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list

Re: [Opm] Problem with injecting field voidage replacement

Hi, I just run the provided deck (but without the "extra line" in GCONINJE) to see if I could reproduce your problem, but I am not sure what to look for. What are the pressure values you expect for the (0.9, 1.0, 1.1) cases? In any case, I get different behaviour from the simulator from

Re: [Opm] unconventional resource plays

Hello Andy, I am not aware of anyone using OPM Flow on unconventional fields, but for all I know there could be someone using it for that. What features do you think would be the most important for such usage? Atgeirr Frå: Opm på vegne av Andrei Austin

Re: [Opm] WAG CO2

___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

Re: [Opm] ACQUIFER keyword

Hi Alan, TNO has also implemented Fetkovich aquifers. I am not aware of any further plans regarding numerical or analytical aquifers, perhaps somebody from TNO (Wessel, Rohith, Frank or Kelvin) can comment on this? Atgeirr Frå: Opm på vegne av Alan King

Re: [Opm] Multiphase flow Tables App

Hi Manoel, I am not aware of any such software that is free or open source, unfortunately. Atgeirr Frå: Opm på vegne av Manoel Farias Sendt: fredag 19. oktober 2018 21:10 Til: opm@opm-project.org Emne: [Opm] Multiphase flow Tables App Hi, Does anybody know

Re: [Opm] Latest docker image of openporousmedia/opmreleases

Dear Mr. Salem, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have updated the repository at Dockerhub, and it should now be possible to refer to the "2018.04" version explicitly, also the "latest" tag now points to that version. Atgeirr Frå: Opm på vegne

Re: [Opm] OPM on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic Beaver)

Hello, Thanks for the tutorial Carl Fredrik, I linked to it from the installation page on opm-project.org, I hope that is OK! Atgeirr Frå: Opm på vegne av c berg Sendt: tysdag 29. mai 2018 19:42 Til: Arne Morten Kvarving; opm@opm-project.org Emne: Re:

[Opm] Redhat packages available for release 2018.04

Dear OPM community, Binary packages for redhat are now available with mpi support using openmpi. They are built according to redhat standards, i.e., there are separate packages with the mpi support. To install the serial 'flow', you do as usual: "yum install opm-simulators-bin". To install the

Re: [Opm] (no subject)

delmoumen-bacetti-01a46b138/> & Researchgate<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abdelmoumen_Bacetti2> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Atgeirr Rasmussen <atgeirr.rasmus...@sintef.no<mailto:atgeirr.rasmus...@sintef.no>> wrote: Dear Mr. Abdelmoumen, I recommend that you try r

Re: [Opm] (no subject)

Dear Mr. Abdelmoumen, I recommend that you try running OPM Flow on HPC systems using the Singularity container system. You should ask your HPC maintainer if Singularity is supported. If not, Docker containers are also available, but will probably not be able to exploit the special hardware

[Opm] Module restructuring: opm-core module removed

Dear OPM community, As part of ongoing work to simplify and reorganize the module structure, the opm-core module has now been removed. Most of the classes and functions have been moved to opm-simulators, with a few exceptions. Build instructions have been updated. Atgeirr

Re: [Opm] Problem with installing flow on Ubuntu 16.04

Hi, I have tried to reproduce your problem with a clean Ubuntu 16.04 VM, but all installation steps succeed for me. Unfortunately, I do not know the packaging system well enough to know what could possibly go wrong. You will therefore probably have to wait until after New Year before we can

Re: [Opm] Problem with installing python-ert.ecl

Hi all, I am afraid that tutorial needs to be updated. About updating the tutorial: the "python-ert.ecl" should be replaced with "python-ecl", that has been changed on the website. Are there other changes that need to be done to make it work? Artyom, I think your errors look a little like

[Opm] OPM release 2017.10, update 1

Dear OPM community, We have created an update for the 2017.10 release. It fixes a few bugs in Flow that could affect simulation results slightly and also lead to very bad performance when running Flow in parallel using MPI. The effect was most pronounced when running with more than 4 MPI

Re: [Opm] Solving a linear eigenvalue problem with OPM

Hi Rodrigo, Thanks for your kind words! The problem you describe looks interesting, and I hope that we can help you towards a solution. First I must admit that I have very limited experience with solving eigenvalue problems numerically (I have not done that in 20 years…) which limits how

[Opm] OPM Flow manual

Dear OPM community, A reference manual has been created for OPM Flow, the fully implicit reservoir simulator program. The manual describes the structure and keywords of the input deck format, how to run Flow, and its command line parameters. We hope that it will be useful! The manual can be

[Opm] Refactoring of EclipseState and Schedule

Dear OPM community, In order to better support using Flow as a component, and gain some "scriptability", we propose to refactor the relationship between the EclipseState and Schedule classes of opm-parser. Currently the EclipseState owns the Schedule. We propose to make the Schedule class

Re: [Opm] Who sets MODULE_ROOT when he/she calls CMake?

15. sep. 2017 kl. 13.44 skrev Markus Blatt >: Hi, does anyone really pass MODULE_ROOT (OPM_CORE_ROOT, OPM_MATERIAL_ROOT, etc.) to CMake to tell it where the modules are located? I do. This is from my CMake options file (that I use by "cmake -C

[Opm] Reminder: Invitation to participate in a survey, MSO4SC

Dear OPM community, I am posting this on behalf of the MSO4SC project, in which we are participating, as seen in the recent news item on the OPM web page, http://opm-project.org/?p=897 This invitation was posted earlier this summer, I am repeating it as some may not have had the time or

[Opm] Program and invitation OPM meeting 18-19 October in Bergen

https://www.scandichotels.no/hotell/norge/bergen/scandic-ornen Please send an email to tor.harald.san...@iris.no<mailto:tor.harald.san...@iris.no> for a registration code. Unfortunately you will have to pay for your stay at the hotel yourself. Kind regards Atgeirr Rasmussen and Tor H

Re: [Opm] Parallel OPM flow simulation

Dear Kang, If you follow the instructions for Mac OS X on this page: http://opm-project.org/?page_id=239 you should be able to build with MPI, although it has not been tested with the latest version of macOS. However, you will then only get a very basic partitioning scheme. To get a good

Re: [Opm] Help with installation

Hello Andres! I checked-out on 63b7cf6febf3f41e59b8803c06994e12a550c46a (which is earlier than the one above), and continued with a successful installation. Good to hear! I realized that you are pushing new commits every few hours to the master branch of all the opm-modules. I guess these

Re: [Opm] API for flow

with respect to the initial conditions and well controls settings to implement gradient-based optimization methods. I am not sure if these are readily available and not interfaced or if I have to figure out how to build them. - Joakim 2017-06-28 4:56 GMT-03:00 Atgeirr Rasmussen <atgeirr.rasm

[Opm] Invitation to OPM meeting in Bergen

Dear OPM community, This year we plan to organize an OPM meeting in mid-October in Bergen. Preliminary dates are Wednesday 18th to Thursday 19th of October. Please feel free to suggest alternative dates if these doesn't fit. We will send out more information on program and venue in August. Do

Re: [Opm] API for flow

28. jun. 2017 kl. 09.32 skrev Alf Birger Rustad >: Hi Joakim, There is currently no library, we have basically viewed ourselves as downstream. Still, the code that makes up the application flow is modular. We have gone through great lengths to make

[Opm] Invitation to participate in a survey, MSO4SC

Dear OPM community, I am posting this on behalf of the MSO4SC project, in which we are participating, as seen in the recent news item on the OPM web page, http://opm-project.org/?p=897 Atgeirr Flø Rasmussen, SINTEF Digital +++ Dear Sir or Madam, Let me

[Opm] Behaviour change for Flow

Dear OPM community, I thought I should let you know that we have just changed the default output directory for the Flow family of simulators. Instead of by default writing to the current directory, it now writes to the directory containing the data deck. If you have scripts depending on this

Re: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17?

> 22. des. 2016 kl. 22.39 skrev Markus Blatt : > > Hi, > > and here comes the first Christmas present: > > The poster has already been accepted. Great! A merry Christmas to you all! Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list

[Opm] New tutorial: running the Norne case with Flow

Dear OPM community, A new tutorial has been made available, explaining how to run the Norne benchmark case with Flow: http://opm-project.org/?page_id=780 If you have feedback on the tutorial, in particular if there are errors or unclear parts, please tell us! Atgeirr Flø Rasmussen

Re: [Opm] PRT Files

Hi again, The problem has been identified, and fixed in opm-simulators#987: https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators/pull/987 If you are building from source, it should be sufficient to pull/update from github and recompile. Thanks to André for fixing! Atgeirr

Re: [Opm] PRT Files

Hi Bob, I can reproduce your error (with SPE1CASE2.DATA). Interestingly the region-based report looks correct: Field: === :

Re: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17?

Markus, Thank you for taking the initiative on this, and my apologies for not replying sooner! I think the abstract is good, and I'll of course contribute to the content of the poster. Best, Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org

Re: [Opm] Version information?

Hi Bernd, This is not something we have given very much attention. Basically our assumption has been that ensuring the releases are solid is enough. However, as maturity increases in general, and people come to rely on the code we should do something more about this. The only place such

[Opm] OPM release 2016.10

Dear OPM community, We are pleased to announce the availability of OPM release 2016.10! This is the second release this year, the previous release was 2016.04. The next release is expected to be 2017.04. The release brings major improvements to the output capabilities of Flow, the fully

[Opm] OPM release 2016.10 release candidate

Dear OPM community, A release candidate is ready for testing. There are binary packages available for 64-bit Ubuntu 14.04, Ubuntu 16.04 and RHEL 6. For those building from source, the relevant branch is called release/2016.10 in each repository. There is a single change to the module structure

[Opm] Upcoming OPM release 2016.10

Dear OPM community, A new release is soon due, and I must ask all contributors who wants a feature to be included in the release to submit their pull requests, or at the very least, tell us about it! We hope to have the release ready by the end of the month. The release will be coordinated by

Re: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates

The perfRates() vector contains *reservoir volume* total rates at the perforations, while the perfPhaseRates() vector contain *surface volume* rates per phase. So it is not a direct sum. Atgeirr 26. sep. 2016 kl. 14.10 skrev Jørgen Kvalsvik >: Hi,

Re: [Opm] Where to start to learn the OPM FLOW code ?

26. aug. 2016 kl. 07.24 skrev Ye Li >: Hi, all: Thanks for creating OPM, such a meaningful project. I have several years experience with reservoir simulation. I want to read the code of OPM to learn the "black box" behind the reservoir simulation.

[Opm] Program for the OPM meeting available

Dear OPM community, The program for the OPM meeting is ready, and can be viewed at http://opm-project.org/?p=664 Please direct any questions to me or Tor Harald Sandve. Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org

[Opm] OPM meeting in Oslo June 1-2

Dear OPM community, We would like to invite you to participate in the 2016 OPM Meeting on June 1-2 in Oslo! We hope to welcome anybody who wants to come, please contact Atgeirr Flø Rasmussen or Tor Harald Sandve if you want to join. Please tell us

Re: [Opm] Compiling source

Hi, As Arne Morten said, the prerequisites must be in place before you build OPM. However the build order part of the page you refer to was outdated after our recent reorganization efforts. I have updated this to show the correct order. Atgeirr 8. apr. 2016 kl. 00.07 skrev Ibrahem Atef

Re: [Opm] Renaming dune-cornerpoint -> opm-grid

Dear OPM community, We have now completed renaming dune-cornerpoint -> opm-grid. Now the module name is changed throughout the system. 1. If you have not already done so, you should now rename your github fork (if you have one) from dune-cornerpoint to opm-grid. 2. You should rename your

[Opm] Renaming dune-cornerpoint -> opm-grid

The repository has now been renamed on github. The old URL will still work for a long time (half a year I think) so no-one need to do anything right now. The next step is creating PRs with the required changes. This is underway. Atgeirr ___ Opm

[Opm] A note on upgrading Dune (and possibly other third-party packages)

Dear OPM community, Yesterday a new version of Dune was released (2.4.1) and I had some problems compiling OPM after updating. However, the fix is simple: delete your build directories (for opm modules depending on Dune modules, which are almost all opm modules except opm-common and opm-parser)

Re: [Opm] Thesis - Enhancing OPM-based Reservoir Simulation via PETSc integration

Congratulations Jørgen! And thanks for sharing with us. Atgeirr ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org http://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

Re: [Opm] Reorganization of modules: opm-polymer and opm-autodiff

> 3. des. 2015 kl. 13.33 skrev Atgeirr Rasmussen <atgeirr.rasmus...@sintef.no>: > > If no-one objects I intend to do the reorganization early next week. This has now been done, and all contents of opm-polymer is now in opm-autodiff. Special thanks to Arne Morten Kvarving who man

[OPM] New website, and release 2015.10 available

Dear OPM community, We have two major news items today! 1. Our new website is available. Found at the same address as before (opm-project.org), we hope that the new site will serve the community well, and provide all the information you need. For the moment, we are still in a transitional

[OPM] Release candidate 2 is available for the 2015.10 release.

Dear OPM community, There are now updated (rc2) binary packages available for testing the 2015.10 OPM release. The information posted in the first round (quoted below) is still valid (no feature changes since rc1). Atgeirr Flø Rasmussen 28. okt. 2015 kl. 09:06 skrev Atgeirr Rasmussen

[OPM] Release candidate 1 is available for the 2015.10 release.

Dear OPM community, There are now binary packages available for testing the 2015.10 OPM release. The major features of this release are: * Significantly improved performance for Flow, the fully implicit black-oil reservoir simulator. * An experimental black-oil + solvent simulator

Re: [OPM] Module renaming and restructuring

Dear OPM community, We have now completed the second step of renaming opm-cmake -> opm-common. Now the module name is changed throughout the build system. 1. If you have not already done so, you should now rename your github fork (if you have one) of opm-common from opm-cmake to opm-common. 2.

Re: [OPM] Module renaming and restructuring

Dear OPM community, As announced earlier, we have now renamed the opm-cmake repository to opm-common. This is the first step of renaming. It only changes the *location* of the repo, not the *module name* as referred to in the other modules. You can change the location of the remote repo in

[OPM] Module renaming and restructuring

Dear OPM community, Many of us feel that our current module/repository structure is a little confusing and should be improved. For example, from the name, one would expect that opm-core would be the single module on which all others depend, but that is not the case. We should move forward one

Re: [OPM] Module renaming and restructuring

28. aug. 2015 kl. 11.34 skrev Roland Kaufmann roland.kaufm...@uni.no: On 28. Aug. 2015 at 11:10, Atgeirr Rasmussen wrote: I propose the following small change to start off: rename opm-cmake to opm-common. ... It will grow (primarily by moving code there from other modules) One question

Re: [OPM] Module renaming and restructuring

28. aug. 2015 kl. 11.46 skrev Roland Kaufmann roland.kaufm...@uni.no: On 28. aug. 2015 at 11.34, Roland Kaufmann wrote: One question: Are you moving the HEAD version of the files, or the entire history? On 28. Aug. 2015 at 11:42, Atgeirr Rasmussen wrote: I imagine that we would

[OPM] Refactoring of the fully implicit solver class

Dear OPM community, We have been considering how to best refactor the (huge) class FullyImplicitBlackoilSolver in such a manner that it can be more easily be extended with new options and functionality without copying the whole class (as is currently done to implement the flow_polymer variant

Re: [OPM] Refactoring of the fully implicit solver class

22. mai 2015 kl. 13:46 skrev Joakim Hove jo...@statoil.com: Could code generation be a third alternative? You could think of templates as a form of structured code generation happening inside the C++ language. I think we want to keep this inside C++, since we are not talking about 100s of

Re: [OPM] Iterative solvers for autodiff

21. mai 2015 kl. 10:25 skrev Tobias Ritschel tobiasritsc...@gmail.com: Thanks for the great feedback. I will proceed with the DUNE solvers and I might compare to the Eigen solvers for a simple setup. I also considered PETSc as I use TAO (part of PETSc) to carry out optimization, though I

Re: [OPM] Installation sub directories

21. mai 2015 kl. 09:58 skrev Joakim Hove jo...@statoil.com: Hello; thank you for your input. What, specifically, do you mean by remove sibling build feature? With that I mean that when searching for opm libraries and header files the build system will not use heuristics to look in

Re: [OPM] Installation sub directories

I use a similar setup as Bård, and I am also reluctant to abandon the so-called sibling builds. Having heard that various meta-project will solve the same, I am willing to try them out, what should I be using instead? My main concerns are that: - it must not be too hard to make a developer's

Re: [OPM] Iterative solvers for autodiff

20. mai 2015 kl. 12:06 skrev Tobias Ritschel tobiasritsc...@gmail.com: These sound like just the solvers and preconditioners that I need. Does this also mean that flow is able to run in parallel? No, it is not. But a variant (flow_cp) is, however it is still in heavy development and

Re: [OPM] Derivatives from solvers in opm-autodiff

Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Opm digest... Today's Topics: 1. Derivatives from solvers in opm-autodiff (Tobias Ritschel) 2. Re: Derivatives from solvers in opm-autodiff (Atgeirr Rasmussen

Re: [OPM] Derivatives from solvers in opm-autodiff

Hi! We have not yet implemented the adjoint method in OPM. We do indeed use Automatic Differentiation (AD) which should make it relatively easy (compared to without AD) to implement adjoints. If you'd implement this I would certainly be interested! It should also be noted that if you have access

Re: [OPM] Multi PR-builder on cloud

Thank you very much for this, it will make it easier to catch mistakes before they are merged rather than after! Atgeirr 14. apr. 2015 kl. 08:10 skrev Christine Fløysand ch...@statoil.com: Hi! A Jenkins job for building and running tests for multiple pull requests are now available on the

Re: [OPM] release candidate packages in PPA

Thank you very much, Arne Morten! I will be testing these on Ubuntu 14.04 (trusty). I would appreciate it if someone could test the 12.04 (precise) packages as well. At this point we consider 10.04 too old to support, it would have required significant extra work to pacakge for it. Atgeirr

[OPM] New OPM release in April

Hi! We have now started a process to make a new OPM release. Our last release was in October 2013, which is a very long time ago! At some point it was decided to postpone the release, waiting for the fully implicit black-oil simulator (which now is named Flow) to mature. While that allowed us

Re: [OPM] New repo opm-utilities

Hi everyone! First, on the original topic of this thread: I think the new repo is fine, it may be a useful alternative to consider placing such things in a utilities/ directory on opm-core instead to reduce the number of repositories though. Second, about gentoo, development platforms etc.:

Re: [OPM] Making OPM modular: support for more linear solvers

28. okt. 2014 kl. 12:14 skrev Jørgen Kvalsvik jorge...@stud.ntnu.no: Hi, I am a student at NTNU http://www.ntnu.no/, and my pre-master project is modularizing OPM by implementing (at least trying to) support for using more linear solvers. There is some code available, see the

  1   2   >