Re: [petsc-users] puzzling arkimex logic

Thanks, it is working fine. Mark On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:12 PM Jed Brown wrote: > This default probably shouldn't be zero, and probably lengthening steps > should be more gentle after a recent failure. But Mark, please let us know > if what's there works for you. > > "Zhang, Hong via

Re: [petsc-users] puzzling arkimex logic

This default probably shouldn't be zero, and probably lengthening steps should be more gentle after a recent failure. But Mark, please let us know if what's there works for you. "Zhang, Hong via petsc-users" writes: > Hi Mark, > > You might want to try -ts_adapt_time_step_increase_delay to

Re: [petsc-users] puzzling arkimex logic

Hi Mark, You might want to try -ts_adapt_time_step_increase_delay to delay increasing the time step after it has been decreased due to a failed solve. Hong (Mr.) > On Jan 2, 2023, at 12:17 PM, Mark Adams wrote: > > I am using arkimex and the logic with a failed KSP solve is puzzling. This >

[petsc-users] puzzling arkimex logic

I am using arkimex and the logic with a failed KSP solve is puzzling. This step starts with a dt of ~.005, the linear solver fails and cuts the time step by 1/4. So far, so good. The step then works but the next time step the time step goes to ~0.006. TS seems to have forgotten that it had to cut