[petsc-users] mumps freezes for bigger problems

[Hong Zhang]

Hmm, this is scalapack routine. Try skip it using
'-mat_mumps_icntl_13 1'

Hong

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Dominik Szczerba <dominik at itis.ethz.ch> wrote:
> Hi Hong,
>
> I tried all of your suggestions, unfortunately, still get MUMPS not
> moving an inch. Running in debugger and interrupting reveals:
>
> 0x000000000139d233 in dgemm (transa=..., transb=..., m=3621, n=3621, k=251,
>    alpha=-1, a=..., lda=3872, b=..., ldb=3872, beta=1, c=..., ldc=3872,
>    _transa=1, _transb=1) at dgemm.f:242
> 242                                   C(I,J) = C(I,J) + TEMP*A(I,L)
>
> So it's seems to be doing something, but on a small problem it takes a
> few minutes, so I do not expect a problem of 2-3 times the size take
> longer than a day...
>
> Regards,
> Dominik
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Hong Zhang <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> Direct solvers often require large memory for storing matrix factors.
>> As Jed suggests, you may try superlu_dist.
>>
>> With mumps, I notice you use parallel analysis, which is relative new in mumps.
>> What happens if you use default sequential analysis with
>> different matrix orderings?
>> I usually use matrix ordering '-mat_mumps_icntl_7 2'.
>>
>> Also, you can increase fill ratio,
>> -mat_mumps_icntl_14 <20>: ICNTL(14): percentage of estimated workspace
>> increase (None)
>> i.e., default ration is 20, you may try 50? (I notice that you already use 30).
>>
>> It seems you use 16 CPUs for "a mere couple thousands
>> elements" problems, and mumps "silently freezes". I do not have this type
>> of experience with mumps. I usually can solve sparse matrix of size
>> 10k with 1 cpu using mumps.
>> When mumps runs out of memory or gets other problems, it terminates
>> execution and dumps out error message,
>> not freezes.
>> Something is wrong here. Use a debugger and figuring out where it freezes.
>>
>> Hong
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> -pc_type lu -pc_factor_mat_solver_package superlu_dist
>>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2011 6:19 AM, "Dominik Szczerba" <dominik at itis.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am successfully solving my indefinite systems with MUMPS but only
>>>> for very small problems. To give a feeling, a mere couple thousands
>>>> elements. If I only double the problem size, it silently freezes, even
>>>> with max verbosity via the control parameters. Did anyone succeed here
>>>> with big problems? Any recommendations for a drop-in replacement for
>>>> MUMPS?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any hints,
>>>> Dominik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Options used:
>>>> -mat_mumps_icntl_4 3 -mat_mumps_icntl_28 2 -mat_mumps_icntl_29
>>>>
>>>> Output:
>>>>
>>>> ****** FACTORIZATION STEP ********
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  GLOBAL STATISTICS PRIOR NUMERICAL FACTORIZATION ...
>>>>  NUMBER OF WORKING PROCESSES              =          16
>>>>  OUT-OF-CORE OPTION (ICNTL(22))           =           0
>>>>  REAL SPACE FOR FACTORS                   =  1438970073
>>>>  INTEGER SPACE FOR FACTORS                =    11376442
>>>>  MAXIMUM FRONTAL SIZE (ESTIMATED)         =       16868
>>>>  NUMBER OF NODES IN THE TREE              =       43676
>>>>  Convergence error after scaling for ONE-NORM (option 7/8)   = 0.21D+01
>>>>  Maximum effective relaxed size of S              =   231932340
>>>>  Average effective relaxed size of S              =   182366303
>>>>
>>>>  REDISTRIB: TOTAL DATA LOCAL/SENT         =     1509215    22859750
>>>>  GLOBAL TIME FOR MATRIX DISTRIBUTION       =      0.8270
>>>>  ** Memory relaxation parameter ( ICNTL(14)  )            :        35
>>>>  ** Rank of processor needing largest memory in facto     :         0
>>>>  ** Space in MBYTES used by this processor for facto      :      2017
>>>>  ** Avg. Space in MBYTES per working proc during facto    :      1618
>>