eeing an error. Am I not running it correctly?
Thanks,
MAtt
Thibaut
On 22/10/2019 17:48, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:43 PM Thibaut Appel via petsc-users
wrote:
Hi Hong,
Thank you for having a look, I copied/pasted your code snippet into ex28.c and
the error i
cesses
>> type: seqaij
>> row 0: (0, 1.)
>> row 1: (1, 1.)
>> row 2: (2, 1.)
>> row 3: (3, 1.)
>> row 4: (4, 1.)
>> row 5: (5, 1.)
>> row 6: (6, 1.)
>> row 7: (7, 1.)
>> row 8: (8, 1.)
>> row 9: (9, 1.)
>> row: 0 col: 9 val:
0E+00
I am not seeing an error. Am I not running it correctly?
Thanks,
MAtt
Thibaut
On 22/10/2019 17:48, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:43 PM Thibaut Appel via petsc-users
mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
Hi Hong,
Thank yo
Hi both,
Please find attached a tiny example (in Fortran, sorry Matthew) that - I
think - reproduces the problem we mentioned.
Let me know.
Thibaut
On 22/10/2019 17:48, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:43 PM Thibaut Appel via petsc-users
mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov
Hi Hong,
Thank you for having a look, I copied/pasted your code snippet into
ex28.c and the error indeed appears if you change that col[0]. That's
because you did not allow a new non-zero location in the matrix with the
option MAT_NEW_NONZERO_LOCATION_ERR.
I spent the day debugging the code
Dear PETSc developers,
I'm extending a validated matrix preallocation/assembly part of my code
to solve multiple linear systems with MUMPS at each iteration of a main
loop, following the example src/mat/examples/tests/ex28.c that Hong
Zhang added a few weeks ago. The difference is that I'm
Hi Hong,
Thank you that was unclear to me, now I understand its purpose!
Thibaut
On 08/10/2019 16:18, Zhang, Hong wrote:
Thibaut :
Sorry, I did not explain it clearly. You call
MatSetOption(A,MAT_NEW_NONZERO_LOCATION_ERR,PETSC_TRUE);
AFTER matrix is assembled. Then no more new zero is allowed
Well, try and create a small SEQAIJ/MPIAIJ matrix and preallocate memory
for the diagonal.
When I try to call MatSetValues to fill the diagonal, on the first row I
get
[0]PETSC ERROR: Argument out of range
[0]PETSC ERROR: Inserting a new nonzero at (0,0) in the matrix
Which is within my
Hi,
Just out of curiosity, I'm a bit confused by the parameter option
MAT_NEW_NONZERO_LOCATION_ERR.
It triggers an error if you try to insert/add a value in the non-zero
structure, regardless of the matrix preallocation status. In what case
would such an option be useful?
Thank you,
and
MatMumpsLoadFromDisk(Mat) they would just money with
DMUMPS_STRUC_C id; item.
>
>
> Barry
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Thibaut Appel via
ith
DMUMPS_STRUC_C id; item.
>
>
> Barry
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Thibaut Appel via
petsc-users mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear PETSc users,
oney with DMUMPS_STRUC_C id; item.
>
>
> Barry
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Thibaut Appel via petsc-users
mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear PETSc users,
>>
>> I need to solve several linear sy
in the DMUMPS_STRUC_C id; and then reload it when needed.
The user level API could be something like
MatMumpsSaveToDisk(Mat) and MatMumpsLoadFromDisk(Mat) they would just money
with DMUMPS_STRUC_C id; item.
Barry
On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Thibaut Appel via petsc-users
wrote:
Dear PETSc
Hi Hong,
A_m would typically have a leading dimension between 6e5 and 1.5e6, with
roughly 100 non-zero entries per row in average.
Don't get me wrong: performing ONE LU factorization is fine for the
memory. It's just that I need to keep track, and store M x LU
factorizations which obviously
Dear PETSc users,
I need to solve several linear systems successively, with LU
factorization, as part of an iterative process in my Fortran application
code.
The process would solve M systems (A_m)(x_m,i) = (b_m,i) for m=1,M at
each iteration i, but computing the LU factorization of A_m
it is not associated with a target
Thibaut
On 22 Feb 2019, at 15:13, Matthew Knepley
mailto:knep...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 9:10 AM Thibaut Appel via
petsc-users mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
19 17:49, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Thibaut Appel via petsc-users
mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
Dear PETSc developers/users,
I’m solving linear PDEs on a regular grid with high-order finite
differences, assembling an MPIAIJ matrix t
ge cannot be
called if the matrix hasn't been preallocated, and I need the global
indices to preallocate.
Thibaut
On 21/02/2019 17:49, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Thibaut Appel via petsc-users
mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
Dear PETSc develope
Dear PETSc developers/users,
I’m solving linear PDEs on a regular grid with high-order finite
differences, assembling an MPIAIJ matrix to solve linear systems or
eigenvalue problems. I’ve been using vertex major, natural ordering for
the parallelism with PetscSplitOwnership (yielding
Hi Mark,
Yes it doesn't seem to be usable. Unfortunately we're aiming to do 3D so
direct solvers are not a viable solution and PETSc' ILU is not parallel
and we can't use HYPRE (complex arithmetic)
Thibaut
On 01/11/2018 20:42, Mark Adams wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:11 PM Smith,
Hi Mark, Matthew,
Thanks for taking the time.
1) You're not suggesting having -fieldsplit_X_ksp_type *f*gmres for each
field, are you?
2) No, the matrix *has* pressure in one of the fields. Here it's a 2D
problem (but we're also doing 3D), the unknowns are (p,u,v) and those
are my 3
Hi Matthew,
Which database option are you referring to?
I tried to add -fieldsplit_mg_levels_ksp_type gmres (and
-fieldsplit_mg_levels_ksp_max_it 4 for another run) to my options (cf.
below) which starts the iterations but it takes 1 hour for PETSc to do
13 of them so it must be wrong.
22 matches
Mail list logo
