Thanks, Barry,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
>
> Do the ASM runs for thousands of time-steps produce the same final
> "physical results" as the MUMPS run for thousands of timesteps? While with
> SuperLU you get a very different "physical
Do the ASM runs for thousands of time-steps produce the same final "physical
results" as the MUMPS run for thousands of timesteps? While with SuperLU you
get a very different "physical results"?
Barry
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Kong, Fande wrote:
>
>
>
> On
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
>
> Since the convergence labeled linear does not converge to 14 digits in
> one iteration I am assuming you are using lagged preconditioning and or
> lagged Jacobian?
>
We are using Jacobian-free Newton. So Jacobian
Since the convergence labeled linear does not converge to 14 digits in one
iteration I am assuming you are using lagged preconditioning and or lagged
Jacobian?
What happens if you do no lagging and solve each linear solve with a new LU
factorization?
Barry
> On Nov 15, 2017, at
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Kong, Fande wrote:
> >
> > Hi Barry,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. I was wondering why this happens only when we use
> superlu_dist. I am trying to understand
To be clear: these differences completely go away with MUMPS?
Can you valgrind this? We have seen some valgrind warning from MUMPS from
BLAS routines. It could be that your BLAS is buggy (and SuperLU uses some
BLAS routines that MUMPS does not). I think SuperLU does more/different
pivoting than
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Kong, Fande wrote:
> Hi Barry,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I was wondering why this happens only when we use
> superlu_dist. I am trying to understand the algorithm in superlu_dist. If
> we use ASM or MUMPS, we do not produce these differences.
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Kong, Fande wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I was wondering why this happens only when we use
> superlu_dist. I am trying to understand the algorithm in superlu_dist. If we
> use ASM or MUMPS, we do not produce these
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your reply. I was wondering why this happens only when we use
superlu_dist. I am trying to understand the algorithm in superlu_dist. If
we use ASM or MUMPS, we do not produce these differences.
The differences actually are NOT meaningless. In fact, we have a real
transient
Meaningless differences
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Kong, Fande wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There is a heat conduction problem. When superlu_dist is used as a
> preconditioner, we have random results from different runs. Is there a random
> algorithm in superlu_dist? If we
Hi,
There is a heat conduction problem. When superlu_dist is used as a
preconditioner, we have random results from different runs. Is there a
random algorithm in superlu_dist? If we use ASM or MUMPS as the
preconditioner, we then don't have this issue.
run 1:
0 Nonlinear |R| = 9.447423e+03
11 matches
Mail list logo