Hello all,
well on my previous message i had fixed too coarse grid, and bad time
steps, now it seems to wrok
sorry to bother
olivier
___
fipy mailing list
fipy@nist.gov
http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy
[ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailma
Hello,
i am working on advection dispersion in porous medium. I previously used
fipy for some complex boundary conditions and it worked nicely, but now
i was trying a 2d example with dispersion in two directions which gave
strange results. So i came back to the simplest problem in 1D (a fixed
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Serbulent UNSAL
wrote:
> There should be some communication overhead but this couldn't explain 2.5
> time slower solution."
>
> So may be it is a good idea that forwarding problem to Trilinos upstream
> if you also confirm the results with 40,000 cells vs. 160,000
Hello,
Thanks for detailed info. Confirmation of parallel running was my first
action both with parallel.py and printing "fipy.parallelComm.procID", also
print mpi4py version of procID and Epetra's version
"Epetra.PyComm().MyPID()"
So I'm definetly sure :)
Your test are consistent with my result
