<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div><br>On Jun 22, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Mark Adams <<a href="mailto:mfadams@lbl.gov">mfadams@lbl.gov</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Boyce Griffith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:griffith@cims.nyu.edu" target="_blank">griffith@cims.nyu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Barry Smith <<a href="mailto:bsmith@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">bsmith@mcs.anl.gov</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><br> I suggest focusing on asm. Having blocks that span multiple processes seems like over kill for a smoother ? (Major league overkill) in fact doesn't one want multiple blocks per process, ie. pretty small blocks.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>And with lots of small blocks, remember to configure with --with-viewfromoptions=0. :-)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yikes. That is overkill right, unless you are worried about (users) accidentally using view and crashing the run with output.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>No joke, Amneet found that PCASM with lots of small subdomains was spending a ton of time in view calls.<div><br></div><div>-- Boyce</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I guess we should have a flag or not iterate over the blocks in ASMView ...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-- Boyce</div></font></span><span class=""><div><font color="#f5f5f5" face="Menlo" size="2"><span style="background-color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></font><blockquote type="cite"><div><br> Barry<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Mark Adams <<a href="mailto:mfadams@lbl.gov" target="_blank">mfadams@lbl.gov</a>> wrote:<br><br>I'm trying to get block smoothers to work for gamg. We (Garth) tried this and got this error:<br><br><br> - Another option is use '-pc_gamg_use_agg_gasm true' and use '-mg_levels_pc_type gasm'.<br><br><br>Running in parallel, I get<br><br> ** Max-trans not allowed because matrix is distributed<br> ----<br><br>First, what is the difference between asm and gasm?<br><br>Second, I need to fix this to get block smoothers. This used to work. Did we lose the capability to have blocks that span processor subdomains?<br><br>gamg only aggregates across processor subdomains within one layer, so maybe I could use one layer of overlap in some way?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mark<br><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>