Re: [petsc-users] PCFieldSplit gives different results for direct and iterative solver
> > > > -fieldsplit_velocity_ksp_type preonly -fieldsplit_velocity_pc_type gamg > -fieldsplit_pressure_ksp_type minres -fieldsplit_pressure_pc_type none > You should use cg for the ksp_type with gamg if you are symmetric and gmres if not (you can try cg even if it is mildly asymmetric). minres is for indefinite symmetric, but you probably are SPD and should use cg.
Re: [petsc-users] PCFieldSplit gives different results for direct and iterative solver
Hello Barry, Thank you for your reply. I reduced the tolerances and get desired solution. I am solving a multiphase incompressible n-s problems and currently we are using augmented lagrangina technique with uzawa iteration. Because the problems are getting larger, we are also looking for some other methods for solving the linear system. I follow pcfieldsplit tutorial from: https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/tutorials/MSITutorial.pdf However, it takes about 10s to finish one iteration and overall it requires like 150s to complete one time step with 100k unknowns, which is a long time compared to our current solver 10s for one time step. I tried the following options: 1). -ksp_type fgmres -pc_type fieldsplit -pc_fieldsplit_type schur -pc_fieldsplit_schur_factorization_type lower -fieldsplit_velocity_ksp_type preonly -fieldsplit_velocity_pc_type gamg -fieldsplit_pressure_ksp_type minres -fieldsplit_pressure_pc_type none 2). -ksp_type fgmres -pc_type fieldsplit -pc_fieldsplit_type schur -pc_fieldsplit_schur_factorization_type diag -fieldsplit_velocity_ksp_type preonly -fieldsplit_velocity_pc_type gamg -fieldsplit_pressure_ksp_type minres -fieldsplit_pressure_pc_type none 3). -ksp_type fgmres -pc_type fieldsplit -pc_fieldsplit_type schur -pc_fieldsplit_schur_factorization_type full -fieldsplit_velocity_ksp_type preonly -fieldsplit_velocity_pc_type lu -fieldsplit_pressure_ksp_rtol 1e-10 -fieldsplit_pressure_pc_type jacobi So I am wondering if there is any other options that can help improve the pcfieldsplit performance. Kind Regards, Shidi On 2019-03-17 00:05, Smith, Barry F. wrote: On Mar 16, 2019, at 6:50 PM, Y. Shidi via petsc-users wrote: Hello, I am trying to solve the incompressible n-s equations by PCFieldSplit. The large matrix and vectors are formed by MatCreateNest() and VecCreateNest(). The system is solved directly by the following command: -ksp_type fgmres \ -pc_type fieldsplit \ -pc_fieldsplit_type schur \ -pc_fieldsplit_schur_fact_type full \ -ksp_converged_reason \ -ksp_monitor_true_residual \ -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type preonly \ -fieldsplit_0_pc_type cholesky \ -fieldsplit_0_pc_factor_mat_solver_package mumps \ -mat_mumps_icntl_28 2 \ -mat_mumps_icntl_29 2 \ -fieldsplit_1_ksp_type preonly \ -fieldsplit_1_pc_type jacobi \ Output: 0 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 true resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.e+00 1 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.642782495109e-02 true resid norm 1.642782495109e-02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.352916226594e-06 Linear solve converged due to CONVERGED_RTOL iterations 1 The system is solved iteratively by the following command: -ksp_type fgmres \ -pc_type fieldsplit \ -pc_fieldsplit_type schur \ -pc_fieldsplit_schur_factorization_type diag \ -ksp_converged_reason \ -ksp_monitor_true_residual \ -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type preonly \ -fieldsplit_0_pc_type gamg \ -fieldsplit_1_ksp_type minres \ -fieldsplit_1_pc_type none \ Output: 0 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 true resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.e+00 1 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.184037364915e+02 true resid norm 2.184037364915e+02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.798667565109e-02 2 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.120097409539e+02 true resid norm 2.120097409635e+02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.746009709742e-02 3 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 4.364091658268e+01 true resid norm 4.364091658575e+01 ||r(i)||/||b|| 3.594054865332e-03 4 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.632671796885e+00 true resid norm 2.632671797020e+00 ||r(i)||/||b|| 2.168141189773e-04 5 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.209213998004e+00 true resid norm 2.209213980361e+00 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.819401808180e-04 6 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 4.683775185840e-01 true resid norm 4.683775085753e-01 ||r(i)||/||b|| 3.857330677735e-05 7 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 3.042503284736e-02 true resid norm 3.042503349258e-02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 2.505658638883e-06 Both methods give answers, but they are different What do you mean the answers are different? Do you mean the solution x from KSPSolve() is different? How are you calculating their difference and how different are they? Since the solutions are only approximate; true residual norm is around 1.642782495109e-02 and 3.042503349258e-02 for the two different solvers there will only be a certain number of identical digits in the two solutions (which depends on the condition number of the original matrix). You can run both solvers with -ksp_rtol 1.e-12 and then (assuming everything is working correctly) the two solutions will be much closer to each other. Barry so I am wondering if it is possible that you can help me figure out which part I am doing wrong. Thank you for your time. Kind Regards, Shidi
Re: [petsc-users] PCFieldSplit gives different results for direct and iterative solver
> On Mar 16, 2019, at 6:50 PM, Y. Shidi via petsc-users > wrote: > > Hello, > > I am trying to solve the incompressible n-s equations by > PCFieldSplit. > > The large matrix and vectors are formed by MatCreateNest() > and VecCreateNest(). > The system is solved directly by the following command: >-ksp_type fgmres \ >-pc_type fieldsplit \ >-pc_fieldsplit_type schur \ >-pc_fieldsplit_schur_fact_type full \ >-ksp_converged_reason \ >-ksp_monitor_true_residual \ >-fieldsplit_0_ksp_type preonly \ >-fieldsplit_0_pc_type cholesky \ >-fieldsplit_0_pc_factor_mat_solver_package mumps \ >-mat_mumps_icntl_28 2 \ >-mat_mumps_icntl_29 2 \ >-fieldsplit_1_ksp_type preonly \ >-fieldsplit_1_pc_type jacobi \ > Output: > 0 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 true resid norm > 1.214252932161e+04 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.e+00 > 1 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.642782495109e-02 true resid norm > 1.642782495109e-02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.352916226594e-06 > Linear solve converged due to CONVERGED_RTOL iterations 1 > > The system is solved iteratively by the following command: >-ksp_type fgmres \ >-pc_type fieldsplit \ >-pc_fieldsplit_type schur \ >-pc_fieldsplit_schur_factorization_type diag \ >-ksp_converged_reason \ >-ksp_monitor_true_residual \ >-fieldsplit_0_ksp_type preonly \ >-fieldsplit_0_pc_type gamg \ >-fieldsplit_1_ksp_type minres \ >-fieldsplit_1_pc_type none \ > Output: > 0 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 true resid norm > 1.214252932161e+04 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.e+00 > 1 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.184037364915e+02 true resid norm > 2.184037364915e+02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.798667565109e-02 > 2 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.120097409539e+02 true resid norm > 2.120097409635e+02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.746009709742e-02 > 3 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 4.364091658268e+01 true resid norm > 4.364091658575e+01 ||r(i)||/||b|| 3.594054865332e-03 > 4 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.632671796885e+00 true resid norm > 2.632671797020e+00 ||r(i)||/||b|| 2.168141189773e-04 > 5 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.209213998004e+00 true resid norm > 2.209213980361e+00 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.819401808180e-04 > 6 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 4.683775185840e-01 true resid norm > 4.683775085753e-01 ||r(i)||/||b|| 3.857330677735e-05 > 7 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 3.042503284736e-02 true resid norm > 3.042503349258e-02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 2.505658638883e-06 > > > Both methods give answers, but they are different What do you mean the answers are different? Do you mean the solution x from KSPSolve() is different? How are you calculating their difference and how different are they? Since the solutions are only approximate; true residual norm is around 1.642782495109e-02 and 3.042503349258e-02 for the two different solvers there will only be a certain number of identical digits in the two solutions (which depends on the condition number of the original matrix). You can run both solvers with -ksp_rtol 1.e-12 and then (assuming everything is working correctly) the two solutions will be much closer to each other. Barry > so I am wondering > if it is possible that you can help me figure out which part I am > doing wrong. > > Thank you for your time. > > Kind Regards, > Shidi
[petsc-users] PCFieldSplit gives different results for direct and iterative solver
Hello, I am trying to solve the incompressible n-s equations by PCFieldSplit. The large matrix and vectors are formed by MatCreateNest() and VecCreateNest(). The system is solved directly by the following command: -ksp_type fgmres \ -pc_type fieldsplit \ -pc_fieldsplit_type schur \ -pc_fieldsplit_schur_fact_type full \ -ksp_converged_reason \ -ksp_monitor_true_residual \ -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type preonly \ -fieldsplit_0_pc_type cholesky \ -fieldsplit_0_pc_factor_mat_solver_package mumps \ -mat_mumps_icntl_28 2 \ -mat_mumps_icntl_29 2 \ -fieldsplit_1_ksp_type preonly \ -fieldsplit_1_pc_type jacobi \ Output: 0 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 true resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.e+00 1 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.642782495109e-02 true resid norm 1.642782495109e-02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.352916226594e-06 Linear solve converged due to CONVERGED_RTOL iterations 1 The system is solved iteratively by the following command: -ksp_type fgmres \ -pc_type fieldsplit \ -pc_fieldsplit_type schur \ -pc_fieldsplit_schur_factorization_type diag \ -ksp_converged_reason \ -ksp_monitor_true_residual \ -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type preonly \ -fieldsplit_0_pc_type gamg \ -fieldsplit_1_ksp_type minres \ -fieldsplit_1_pc_type none \ Output: 0 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 true resid norm 1.214252932161e+04 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.e+00 1 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.184037364915e+02 true resid norm 2.184037364915e+02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.798667565109e-02 2 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.120097409539e+02 true resid norm 2.120097409635e+02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.746009709742e-02 3 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 4.364091658268e+01 true resid norm 4.364091658575e+01 ||r(i)||/||b|| 3.594054865332e-03 4 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.632671796885e+00 true resid norm 2.632671797020e+00 ||r(i)||/||b|| 2.168141189773e-04 5 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 2.209213998004e+00 true resid norm 2.209213980361e+00 ||r(i)||/||b|| 1.819401808180e-04 6 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 4.683775185840e-01 true resid norm 4.683775085753e-01 ||r(i)||/||b|| 3.857330677735e-05 7 KSP unpreconditioned resid norm 3.042503284736e-02 true resid norm 3.042503349258e-02 ||r(i)||/||b|| 2.505658638883e-06 Both methods give answers, but they are different so I am wondering if it is possible that you can help me figure out which part I am doing wrong. Thank you for your time. Kind Regards, Shidi
