Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

2016-01-18 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Hoang Giang Bui wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > >> >> > On Jan 14, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Jed Brown wrote: >> > >> > Hoang Giang Bui writes: >> >> One

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

2016-01-18 Thread Hoang Giang Bui
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > > On Jan 14, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > > > Hoang Giang Bui writes: > >> One more question I like to ask, which is more on the performance of the > >> solver. That if

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

2016-01-18 Thread Hoang Giang Bui
Why P2/P2 is not for co-located discretization? However, it's not my question. The P2/P1 which I used generate variable block size at each node. That was fine if I used PCFieldSplitSetIS for each components, displacements and pressures. But how to set the block size (3) for displacement block?

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

2016-01-18 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Hoang Giang Bui wrote: > Why P2/P2 is not for co-located discretization? However, it's not my > question. The P2/P1 which I used generate variable block size at each node. > That was fine if I used PCFieldSplitSetIS for each components, >

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

2016-01-18 Thread Jed Brown
Hoang Giang Bui writes: > Why P2/P2 is not for co-located discretization? Matt typed "P2/P2" when me meant "P2/P1". signature.asc Description: PGP signature