Dear Roy,
thanks for your answer.
If I understand you correctly, performing more than one AMR step at every
timestep is “inefficient”.
The strategy should be to run with a fixed locally refined mesh for N timestep,
before running a new adaptive step.
So if I want to compare with a uniform grid
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Rossi, Simone wrote:
>
>> The run times for 100 timesteps using AMR can be more than 10 times slower
>> than when using a fine uniform grid.
>> For example, with a 16 x 16 x 16 uniform grid, 100 iterations take abou
Dear Vikram,
I switched to the PatchRecoveryErrorEstimator.
The AMR simulations are faster than before, but still much slower than the
uniform mesh case.
Most of the time is still spent in the projections.
Let me know if you have any suggestion.
Thanks a lot for your help,
All the best,
Simone
A
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Rossi, Simone wrote:
> The run times for 100 timesteps using AMR can be more than 10 times slower
> than when using a fine uniform grid.
> For example, with a 16 x 16 x 16 uniform grid, 100 iterations take about 18
> seconds with a single processor.
> With AMR, using a 2 x
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Vikram Garg wrote:
> It seems it is the projection functions that are computationally
> expensive.
I'm not sure if this is the entire issue, but Vikram's almost
certainly right that this is the main issue.
I have a couple ideas for possible optimizations here; I'll see if I
