[petsc-dev] FAS with TS

-- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/9f69cf1e/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] FAS with TS

ectors to define the residual. Maybe it would be better to make a little container that was basically just a struct, but masqueraded as a TS. > However, having a multilevel time integration scheme outside of FAS > accessible to FAS to accelerate solution might be an interesting project; > are there references? Would this look like grid sequencing + FAS with the > grid sequence solutions moved forward in time? > Hmm, I haven't seen anything really like that, but note that the stability threshold for explicit methods is larger on coarse levels. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/f3b9131e/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] FAS with TS

.. URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/7317b828/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] FAS with TS

ers take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/f676b322/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] FAS with TS

v/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/d1302a40/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] MatMatMult gives different results

;>>> matlab. >>>> >>>> Attached you see figure plotted as: >>>> imagesc(log10(abs(C-Cm))) >>>> >>>> Where Cm -- product computed in matlab. >>>> >>>> The pattern and amplitude vary depending on the >>>> number of cores I use. This picture is obtained >>>> for 48 cores (I've tried 12, 64 cores as well). >>>> >>>> Where should I look for possible explanation? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Alexander >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Alexander >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Alexander > > > -- Regards, Alexander -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/be105e32/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > > > I'm sure Jed (or Matt in his prime) could have run over to IIT and > > restarted the machine in less time than this :-) > > > > Sure, and like everybody else they would have had to wait outside unti

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:43 AM, Satish Balay wrote: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > >> >> On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Sean Farley wrote: >> >>> I'm sure Jed (or Matt in his prime) could have run over to IIT and >>> restarted the machine in less time than this :-) >>> >>> Sure, and lik

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > >> Besides who the heck set up the machine so it cannot be started > >> remotely? Should have used an Apple machine :-) > > > > > > It was a human error [when you tell something to shutdown - it should not > > automatically restart]. > > > > yeah -

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

ys to the new site. > > > > For now - I've removed petsc-dev and BuildSystem from petsc.cs.iit - > > and will plan a phased shutdown of the machine - as soon as you can > > find new home for all repos. > > > > Satish > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/7f543a21/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:43 AM, Satish Balay wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > > >> > >> On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > >> > >>> I'm sure Jed (or Matt

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

and will plan a phased shutdown of the machine - as soon as you can > > > find new home for all repos. > > > > > > Satish > > > > > > > > > > -- > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > experiments lead. > > -- Norbert Wiener > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/ccee29e6/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] MatMatMult gives different results

sc binary format for >>>>> investigation? >>>>> >>>>> Hong >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Alexander Grayver < >>>>> agrayver at gfz-potsdam.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear PETSc team, >>>>>> >>>>>> I try to use: >>>>>> call >>>>>> MatMatMult(A,B,MAT_INITIAL_MATRIX,PETSC_DEFAULT_DOUBLE_PRECISION,C,ierr);CHKERRQ(ierr) >>>>>> >>>>>> Where both A and B are rectangular, but A is sparse and B is dense. >>>>>> Both are double complex and distributed. >>>>>> The product PETSc gives me contains some errors in some part of the >>>>>> matrix. >>>>>> I output A, B and C then computed product in matlab. >>>>>> >>>>>> Attached you see figure plotted as: >>>>>> imagesc(log10(abs(C-Cm))) >>>>>> >>>>>> Where Cm -- product computed in matlab. >>>>>> >>>>>> The pattern and amplitude vary depending on the number of cores I >>>>>> use. This picture is obtained for 48 cores (I've tried 12, 64 cores as >>>>>> well). >>>>>> >>>>>> Where should I look for possible explanation? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Alexander >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alexander >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Alexander >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Alexander > > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/0ce60933/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/5f26d223/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

hen fork the repos you want into your own account, like so: https://bitbucket.org/seanfarley/petsc-dev The nice thing about this is that you can tell where it was forked from: "(fork of petsc / petsc-dev)" -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

[petsc-dev] MatMatMult gives different results

;> is sparse and B is dense. Both are double >>>>> complex and distributed. >>>>> The product PETSc gives me contains some >>>>> errors in some part of the matrix. >>>>> I output A, B and C then computed product >>>>> in matlab. >>>>> >>>>> Attached you see figure plotted as: >>>>> imagesc(log10(abs(C-Cm))) >>>>> >>>>> Where Cm -- product computed in matlab. >>>>> >>>>> The pattern and amplitude vary depending >>>>> on the number of cores I use. This picture >>>>> is obtained for 48 cores (I've tried 12, >>>>> 64 cores as well). >>>>> >>>>> Where should I look for possible explanation? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alexander >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Alexander >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Alexander >> >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Alexander > > -- Regards, Alexander -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/134cf8b2/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

ts lead. -- Norbert Wiener -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/554ea262/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Sean Farley wrote: > There is only a 1-level hierarchy based on a top level account. Sean created > 'petsc' for our stuff. We can create many, so that > we have 'petsc-release', 'petsc-private', etc. if we wa

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

onfusing to have them all like so: petsc/petsc-3.1 petsc/petsc-dev -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/f1d546db/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Barry Smith wrote: > > > and have a hierarchy of managers of the repositories > > I don't know why we need a hierarchy of managers, but we can have individual > managers with admin priv. Generally you

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

ed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/78567e4b/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

ant to, just create the account: petsc-release(s) then the URL would be http://bitbucket.org/petsc-release/petsc-3.1 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/7e86f133/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] MatMatMult gives different results

2 >>>>>> +0100 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06.02.2012 17:13, Hong Zhang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> MatMatMult() in petsc is not well-tested for complex - could be >>>>>> buggy. >>>>>> Can you send us the matrices A and B in petsc binary format for >>>>>> investigation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hong >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Alexander Grayver < >>>>>> agrayver at gfz-potsdam.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear PETSc team, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I try to use: >>>>>>> call >>>>>>> MatMatMult(A,B,MAT_INITIAL_MATRIX,PETSC_DEFAULT_DOUBLE_PRECISION,C,ierr);CHKERRQ(ierr) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where both A and B are rectangular, but A is sparse and B is dense. >>>>>>> Both are double complex and distributed. >>>>>>> The product PETSc gives me contains some errors in some part of the >>>>>>> matrix. >>>>>>> I output A, B and C then computed product in matlab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached you see figure plotted as: >>>>>>> imagesc(log10(abs(C-Cm))) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where Cm -- product computed in matlab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The pattern and amplitude vary depending on the number of cores I >>>>>>> use. This picture is obtained for 48 cores (I've tried 12, 64 cores as >>>>>>> well). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where should I look for possible explanation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Alexander >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Alexander >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alexander >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Alexander >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Alexander > > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/3e74965e/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

ke for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/4fcefcdc/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

or all taged changesets. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/a84f702c/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] MatMatMult gives different results

Dear PETSc team, >>>>>> >>>>>> I try to use: >>>>>> call >>>>>> >>>>>> MatMatMult(A,B,MAT_INITIAL_MATRIX,PETSC_DEFAULT_DOUBLE_PRECISION,C,ierr);CHKERRQ(ierr) >>>>>> >>>>>> Where both A and B are rectangular, >>>>>> but A is sparse and B is dense. Both >>>>>> are double complex and distributed. >>>>>> The product PETSc gives me contains >>>>>> some errors in some part of the matrix. >>>>>> I output A, B and C then computed >>>>>> product in matlab. >>>>>> >>>>>> Attached you see figure plotted as: >>>>>> imagesc(log10(abs(C-Cm))) >>>>>> >>>>>> Where Cm -- product computed in matlab. >>>>>> >>>>>> The pattern and amplitude vary >>>>>> depending on the number of cores I >>>>>> use. This picture is obtained for 48 >>>>>> cores (I've tried 12, 64 cores as well). >>>>>> >>>>>> Where should I look for possible >>>>>> explanation? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Alexander >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alexander >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Alexander >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Alexander >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Alexander > > -- Regards, Alexander -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/cbdcfb6f/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] MatMatMult gives different results

t;> Can you send us the matrices A and B in >>>>>>> petsc binary format for investigation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hong >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:55 AM, >>>>>>> Alexander Grayver >>>>>>> >>>>>> <mailto:agrayver at gfz-potsdam.de>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear PETSc team, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I try to use: >>>>>>> call >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MatMatMult(A,B,MAT_INITIAL_MATRIX,PETSC_DEFAULT_DOUBLE_PRECISION,C,ierr);CHKERRQ(ierr) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where both A and B are rectangular, >>>>>>> but A is sparse and B is dense. Both >>>>>>> are double complex and distributed. >>>>>>> The product PETSc gives me contains >>>>>>> some errors in some part of the matrix. >>>>>>> I output A, B and C then computed >>>>>>> product in matlab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached you see figure plotted as: >>>>>>> imagesc(log10(abs(C-Cm))) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where Cm -- product computed in matlab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The pattern and amplitude vary >>>>>>> depending on the number of cores I >>>>>>> use. This picture is obtained for 48 >>>>>>> cores (I've tried 12, 64 cores as well). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where should I look for possible >>>>>>> explanation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Alexander >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Alexander >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alexander >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Alexander >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Alexander >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Alexander -- Regards, Alexander -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/e6e68419/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/adb7186d/attachment.html>

[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 21:05, Matthew Knepley wrote: > I would be alright with any grouping strategy, be it > directories, tags, etc. I think this is orthogonal to Mercurial. > > All I would want is tags. Hierarchical directory trees are so 1970s.

[petsc-dev] MatMatMult gives different results

-- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120208/0bcd2aca/attachment.html>