Re: [petsc-users] GAMG scaling

I basically used 'runex56' and set '-ne' be compatible with np. Then I used option '-matptap_via scalable' '-matptap_via hypre' '-matptap_via nonscalable' I attached a job script below. In master branch, I set default as 'nonscalable' for small - medium size matrices, and automatically switch to

Re: [petsc-users] strange convergence

Hi Lukasz, thanks for sharing very interesting slide. Both of you are right, the mortar method starts from continuum argument then reduce to discrete space by discretizing the Lagrange multiplier. However, the way to choose the interpolation space has some implication on the properties of the

Re: [petsc-users] GAMG scaling

Hong,the input files do not seem to be accessible. What are the command line option? (I don't see a "rap" or "scale" in the source). On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Hong wrote: > Mark, > Below is the copy of my email sent to you on Feb 27: > > I implemented scalable

Re: [petsc-users] log_view for the master branch

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Kong, Fande wrote: > Hi, > > I am using the current master branch. The log_view gives me the summary as > follows, and the "WARNING" box repeats three times. Are we intending to do > so? > Yep, Barry is Really Freaking Serious@ that you should

[petsc-users] log_view for the master branch

Hi, I am using the current master branch. The log_view gives me the summary as follows, and the "WARNING" box repeats three times. Are we intending to do so? Thanks, Fande,

Re: [petsc-users] GAMG scaling

Mark, Below is the copy of my email sent to you on Feb 27: I implemented scalable MatPtAP and did comparisons of three implementations using ex56.c on alcf cetus machine (this machine has small memory, 1GB/core): - nonscalable PtAP: use an array of length PN to do dense axpy - scalable PtAP:

[petsc-users] GAMG scaling

(Hong), what is the current state of optimizing RAP for scaling? Nate, is driving 3D elasticity problems at scaling with GAMG and we are working out performance problems. They are hitting problems at ~1.5B dof problems on a basic Cray (XC30 I think). Thanks, Mark

Re: [petsc-users] strange convergence

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Hoang Giang Bui wrote: > Dear Jed > > If I understood you correctly you suggest to avoid penalty by using the > Lagrange multiplier for the mortar constraint? In this case it leads to the > use of discrete Lagrange multiplier space. > Sorry

Re: [petsc-users] strange convergence

On 3 May 2017, at 08:29, Hoang Giang Bui > wrote: Dear Jed If I understood you correctly you suggest to avoid penalty by using the Lagrange multiplier for the mortar constraint? In this case it leads to the use of discrete Lagrange multiplier

Re: [petsc-users] strange convergence

On Wed, 3 May 2017 at 09:29, Hoang Giang Bui wrote: > Dear Jed > > If I understood you correctly you suggest to avoid penalty by using the > Lagrange multiplier for the mortar constraint? In this case it leads to the > use of discrete Lagrange multiplier space. Do you or