Hi,
Our unstructured finite element code does a fairly standard
overlapping decomposition that allows it to calculate all the non-zero
column entries for the rows owned by the processor (rows 0...ldim-1 in
the local numbering). We assemble them into a local CSR matrix and
then copy them
, Chris Kees wrote:
Thanks. Just to make sure I'm following, when I create the matrix
I do:
MatCreate(PETSC_COMM_WORLD,self-m);
MatSetSizes(self-m,n,n,N,N);
MatSetType(self-m,MATMPIAIJ);
MatSetFromOptions(self-m);
MatSeqAIJSetPreallocationCSR(self-m,SMP(L)-A.rowptr,SMP(L
2.284405915285e+01 true resid norm
1.062801511746e+01 ||Ae||/||Ax|| 1.e+00
1 KSP preconditioned resid norm 3.093811333624e-14 true resid norm
1.046870732638e-13 ||Ae||/||Ax|| 9.850105791801e-15
On Oct 29, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Chris Kees
, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Chris Kees wrote:
I pulled the most recent version of petsc-dev and added
superlu_dist. The only case that fails is spooles on 1 processor
with an mpiaij matrix created with the Create/SetSizes/...
paradigm. I would suspect something in spooles wrapper code.
code
On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:43 PM, Hong Zhang wrote:
On Oct 29, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Chris Kees wrote:
I think I added the correct test code and got a difference of 0,
but spooles is still not returning the correct result, at least not
until the 2nd iteration. I'm attaching some of the code
PM, Chris Kees wrote:
I think I added the correct test code and got a difference of 0,
but spooles is still not returning the correct result, at least not
until the 2nd iteration. I'm attaching some of the code and output.
Chris
code for mat creates
Hi,
This may be of interest to people developing in Python and C/C++. I worked
out a simple hack to use the petsc4py configuration to build Python
extension modules with the correct petsc compilers and options. We had
been doing this using some makefile tricks, but our approach wasn't as
On May 12, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:27:18 -0300, Lisandro Dalcin
dalcinl at gmail.com wrote:
Chris is going to use this from Python, and I have to add support in
petsc4py. I think I'll have to provide a better API, something like:
Hi,
I appear to be setting the index sets properly now through the
petsc4py wrappers (using the existing interface) that Lisandro and I
added. I can't seem to set the options on the KSP/PC for the splits
though. My options look like this:
-navierStokes_fieldsplit_type MULTIPLICATIVE
This whole thread has been really interesting. I'm interested in
Barry's suggestion, and I know a handful of people not on the list who
would also be interested. I've got a couple of questions/responses
to the MatSetValues, point-wise physics, and support tools issues
that were raised.
OK. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll pull petsc-dev next week and see if
mumps gives me the same behavior as superlu_dist before trying to set up a
Schur complement preconditioner for stokes.
Chris
On 9/6/08 11:31 AM, Jed Brown jed at 59A2.org wrote:
On Sat 2008-09-06 10:57, Kees, Christopher
[five9a2 at gmail.com] on behalf of Jed Brown [jedbrown at
mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:10 PM
To: Nystrom, William D; For users of the development version of PETSc; Chris
Kees
Subject: Re: [petsc-dev] examples/benchmarks for weak and strong scaling
exercise
Nystrom, William
Hi,
Is there a set of HPC benchmarks that the core PETSc developers recommend
for evaluating architectures? Meaning to evaluating claims about
performance to support rational acquisition decisions on new systems. I
recall speaking briefly with Jed at a conference about a benchmark that
was more
13 matches
Mail list logo
