> On 20 Dec 2018, at 01:06, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> Hapla Vaclav via petsc-dev writes:
>
>> So my overall idea (which I presented also at this year's User Meeting
>> in London and nobody has objected yet), is that some FE codes could
>> potentially use only this for both checkpointing and
>>
Hapla Vaclav via petsc-dev writes:
> So my overall idea (which I presented also at this year's User Meeting
> in London and nobody has objected yet), is that some FE codes could
> potentially use only this for both checkpointing and
> viewing. Advantages would include removing the redundancy in
Thanks Karli! That should be it.
Vaclav
On 18 December 2018 16:48:30 GMT+01:00, Karl Rupp wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have not quickly found how is that "VTK ordering" defined but I
>> hopefully it's a well-defined unambiguous cell-local numbering. I
>will
>> try to find it out soon and get back to
On 18 Dec 2018, at 14:30, Matthew Knepley
mailto:knep...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:28 AM Matthew Knepley
mailto:knep...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:54 AM Hapla Vaclav
mailto:vaclav.ha...@erdw.ethz.ch>> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2018, at 20:36, Matthew Knepley
On 17 Dec 2018, at 20:36, Matthew Knepley
mailto:knep...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:11 PM Lawrence Mitchell
mailto:we...@gmx.li>> wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2018, at 11:56, Hapla Vaclav
> mailto:vaclav.ha...@erdw.ethz.ch>> wrote:
>
> Matt, great that your reminded this email. I
On 18 Dec 2018, at 12:16, Hapla Vaclav via petsc-dev
mailto:petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2018, at 18:11, Lawrence Mitchell mailto:we...@gmx.li>>
wrote:
On 17 Dec 2018, at 11:56, Hapla Vaclav
mailto:vaclav.ha...@erdw.ethz.ch>> wrote:
Matt, great that your reminded this email.
> On 17 Dec 2018, at 18:11, Lawrence Mitchell wrote:
>
>
>> On 17 Dec 2018, at 11:56, Hapla Vaclav wrote:
>>
>> Matt, great that your reminded this email. I actually completely missed it
>> that time.
>>
>>> On 14 Dec 2018, at 19:54, Matthew Knepley via petsc-dev
>>> wrote:
>
> [...]
> On 17 Dec 2018, at 11:56, Hapla Vaclav wrote:
>
> Matt, great that your reminded this email. I actually completely missed it
> that time.
>
>> On 14 Dec 2018, at 19:54, Matthew Knepley via petsc-dev
>> wrote:
[...]
>> I would like:
>>
>> - To be able to dump the DMPlex, and fields, on
Hi Matt, all,
> On 14 Dec 2018, at 19:54, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:34 AM Lawrence Mitchell wrote:
> Dear petsc-dev,
>
> I'm once again revisiting doing "proper" checkpoint-restart cycles. I would
> like to leverage the existing PETSc stuff for this as much as
Matt, great that your reminded this email. I actually completely missed it that
time.
On 14 Dec 2018, at 19:54, Matthew Knepley via petsc-dev
mailto:petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:34 AM Lawrence Mitchell
mailto:we...@gmx.li>> wrote:
Dear petsc-dev,
I'm once again
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:34 AM Lawrence Mitchell wrote:
> Dear petsc-dev,
>
> I'm once again revisiting doing "proper" checkpoint-restart cycles. I
> would like to leverage the existing PETSc stuff for this as much as
> possible, but I am a bit lost as to what is implemented, and what is
>
Dear petsc-dev,
I'm once again revisiting doing "proper" checkpoint-restart cycles. I would
like to leverage the existing PETSc stuff for this as much as possible, but I
am a bit lost as to what is implemented, and what is missing.
I have:
- A (distributed) DMPlex defining the topology
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
