Thanks. Then, I’ll worry about that when it will be running.
Best,
Simone
On Sep 5, 2018, at 22:54, Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 9:22 PM, Rossi, Simone <sro...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying that.
>>
>> So if I have my subdomain set as
>>
>> 0 —— 1 —— 2 —— 3 —— 4 —— 5 —— 6
>> | subdomain 1 | subdomain 2 | subdomain 1 |
>>
>> Should I actually make sure that I define 3 separate subdomains?
>
> You don't have to. The degrees of freedom that define a subdomain do not
> have to be connected. So your first subdomain could be 0,1,2,5,6 and second
> subdomain 3,4. For best convergence it is better if the subdomains are
> connected but they need not be for correctness. If it is a struggle to make
> them connected then don't worry about it.
>
> Barry
>
>
>
>> Currently, my subdomains are defined depending on a parameter of the system
>> of PDEs I’m solving.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Simone
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Fande Kong <fdkong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:54 AM Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2 should belong to one of the subdomains, either one is fine.
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Rossi, Simone <sro...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’m trying to setup GASM, but I’m probably misunderstanding something.
>>>>
>>>> If I have this mesh
>>>>
>>>> 0 —— 1 —— 2 —— 3 —— 4
>>>> subdomain 1 | subdomain 2
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may need to make a decision which subdomain ``2" belongs to. Most
>>> people just let the shared node go to the lower MPI rank. If so, in this
>>> example, ``2" belongs to the subdomain one.
>>>
>>> iis1 = {0, 1, 2}
>>> ois = {0, 1, 2, 3}
>>>
>>> iis2 = {3, 4}
>>> ois2 = {2, 3, 4}
>>>
>>> You consider seriously to use GASM, I would suggest to partition your
>>> problem (using ``hierach") in such a way that multi-rank subdomain is
>>> actually connected, otherwise you may end up having a deficient
>>> performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Fande,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I create an interior (no overlap) and an outer (with overlap) IS for both
>>>> subdomains.
>>>>
>>>> In my naive understanding
>>>>
>>>> iis1 = {0, 1}
>>>> ois1 = {0, 1, 2}
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> iis2 = {3, 4}
>>>> ois2 = {2, 3, 4}
>>>>
>>>> but then the node at the interface (node 2) does not belong to any
>>>> interior IS. Should node 2 belong to both interior IS? Or should it belong
>>>> only to one of the domains?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Simone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 15, 2018, at 22:11, Griffith, Boyce Eugene <boy...@email.unc.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you can have "overlapping fields" with FIELDSPLIT but I don't think
>>>>>> you can use FIELDSPLIT for your case. You seem to have a geometric
>>>>>> decomposition into regions. ASM and GASM are intended for such
>>>>>> decompositions. Fieldsplit is for multiple fields that each live across
>>>>>> the entire domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically there is one field the lives on the entire domain, and another
>>>>> field that lives only on a subdomain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we could do GASM for the geometric split and FIELDSPLIT within
>>>>> the subdomain with the two fields.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Griffith, Boyce Eugene
>>>>>>> <boy...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it permissible to have overlapping fields in FIELDSPLIT? We are
>>>>>>> specifically thinking about how to handle DOFs living on the interface
>>>>>>> between two regions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> — Boyce
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
