James Also, what constraints are calculated by LazEv?
-erik On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim > > Thanks for posting the details. > > Can you give us more details about the LazEv scheme? In particular there > may be differences in the gauge. What (gauge) variables do you evolve? What > gauge conditions do you use? And what kind of dissipation do you apply? Can > you point us to the source code? > > For the new McLachlan, you would probably use the built-in dissipation > instead of thorn Dissipation, which should lead to a small speed-up. > > -erik > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:43 PM, James Healy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have been running some tests on Stampede comparing the run speed of >> McLachlan to RIT's evolution thorn LazEv. I started with the >> qc0-mclachlan.par parameter file included with the Einstein Toolkit, added >> a few refinement levels, increased the resolution and changed McLachlan to >> be 8th order (and increased the number of ghost zones to 5). I also >> increased the initial separation so the finest grids aren't already >> overlapping. To compare with LazEv, I removed the McLachlan and >> Dissipation thorns and replaced them with LazEv. Everything else in the >> parameter file is exactly the same. I tried using both the McLachlan >> master and rewrite branches. >> >> The grid setup is 10 levels of refinement, dx=4M on the coarsest with >> outer boundary at 400M, M/128 on the finest with r=0.6M, CFL is 0.25. Both >> use 8th order spatial differencing with ghost_size=5 and 5th order >> dissipation. >> >> Below is a summary of the results as reported at iteration 256 from >> Carpet::physical_time_per_hour: >> >> McLachlan - rewrite branch: 3.0596110 M/hr >> McLachlan - master branch: 3.8033607 M/hr >> LazEv - 4.1941544 M/hr >> >> I am using the stampede-impi.cfg configuration file in simfactory. >> "module list" returns: >> >> 1) TACC-paths 3) cluster-paths 5) xalt/0.4.6 7) TACC >> 2) Linux 4) intel/13.0.2.146 6) cluster 8) impi/4.1.0.030 >> >> >> Attached is my parameter file. I pasted the McLachlan parameters below. >> Are there any optimizations that I can use for McLachlan? Are the >> parameters I am using for it what would be used for production runs? >> >> ML_BSSN::harmonicN = 1 # 1+log >> ML_BSSN::harmonicF = 2.0 # 1+log >> ML_BSSN::ShiftGammaCoeff = 0.75 >> ML_BSSN::BetaDriver = 1.0 >> ML_BSSN::LapseAdvectionCoeff = 1.0 >> ML_BSSN::ShiftAdvectionCoeff = 1.0 >> >> ML_BSSN::MinimumLapse = 1.0e-8 >> >> ML_BSSN::my_initial_boundary_condition = "extrapolate-gammas" >> ML_BSSN::my_rhs_boundary_condition = "NewRad" >> Boundary::radpower = 2 >> >> ML_BSSN::ML_log_confac_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_metric_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_Gamma_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_trace_curv_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_curv_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_lapse_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_dtlapse_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_shift_bound = "none" >> ML_BSSN::ML_dtshift_bound = "none" >> >> ML_BSSN::fdOrder = 8 >> >> ActiveThorns = "Dissipation" >> >> Dissipation::order = 5 >> Dissipation::vars = " >> ML_BSSN::ML_metric >> ML_BSSN::ML_trace_curv >> ML_BSSN::ML_curv >> ML_BSSN::ML_Gamma >> ML_BSSN::ML_lapse >> ML_BSSN::ML_shift >> ML_BSSN::ML_dtlapse >> ML_BSSN::ML_dtshift >> " >> >> ActiveThorns = "ML_ADMConstraints" >> >> >> Thanks, >> Jim Healy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> > > > -- > Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/ > -- Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
