<div dir="ltr">I've tried the option that you gave me but I still get different number of iterations when changing the number of MPI processes: I did 960 procs and 1024 procs and I got 435 and 176 iterations, respectively.<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">El mar., 23 oct. 2018 a las 16:48, Jose E. Roman (<<a href="mailto:jroman@dsic.upv.es">jroman@dsic.upv.es</a>>) escribió:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> El 23 oct 2018, a las 15:46, Ale Foggia <<a href="mailto:amfoggia@gmail.com" target="_blank">amfoggia@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> El mar., 23 oct. 2018 a las 15:33, Jose E. Roman (<<a href="mailto:jroman@dsic.upv.es" target="_blank">jroman@dsic.upv.es</a>>) escribió:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> > El 23 oct 2018, a las 15:17, Ale Foggia <<a href="mailto:amfoggia@gmail.com" target="_blank">amfoggia@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br>
> > <br>
> > Hello Jose, thanks for your answer.<br>
> > <br>
> > El mar., 23 oct. 2018 a las 12:59, Jose E. Roman (<<a href="mailto:jroman@dsic.upv.es" target="_blank">jroman@dsic.upv.es</a>>) escribió:<br>
> > There is an undocumented option:<br>
> > <br>
> > -bv_reproducible_random<br>
> > <br>
> > It will force the initial vector of the Krylov subspace to be the same irrespective of the number of MPI processes. This should be used for scaling analyses as the one you are trying to do.<br>
> > <br>
> > What about when I'm not doing the scaling? Now I would like to ask for computing time for bigger size problems, should I also use this option in that case? Because, what happens if I have a "bad" configuration? Meaning, I ask for some time, enough if I take into account the "correct" scaling, but when I run it takes double the time/iterations, like it happened before when changing from 960 to 1024 processes?<br>
> <br>
> When you increase the matrix size the spectrum of the matrix changes and probably also the convergence, so the computation time is not easy to predict in advance.<br>
> <br>
> Okey, I'll keep that in mine. I thought that, even if the spectrum changes, if I had a behaviour/tendency for 6 or 7 smaller cases I could predict more or less the time. It was working this way until I found this "iterations problem" which doubled the time of execution for the same size problem. To be completely sure, do you suggest me or not to use this run-time option when going in production? Can you elaborate a bit in the effect this option? Is the (huge) difference I got in the number of iterations something expected?<br>
<br>
Ideally if you have a rough approximation of the eigenvector, you set it as the initial vector with EPSSetInitialSpace(). Otherwise, SLEPc generates a random initial vector, that is start the search blindly. The difference between using one random vector or another may be large, depending on the problem. Krylov-Schur is usually less sensitive to the initial vector. <br>
<br>
Jose<br>
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> > <br>
> > An additional comment is that we strongly recommend to use the default solver (Krylov-Schur), which will do Lanczos with implicit restart. It is generally faster and more stable.<br>
> > <br>
> > I will be doing Dynamical Lanczos, that means that I'll need the "matrix whose rows are the eigenvectors of the tridiagonal matrix" (so, according to the Lanczos Technical Report notation, I need the "matrix whose rows are the eigenvectors of T_m", which should be the same as the vectors y_i). I checked the Technical Report for Krylov-Schur also and I think I can get the same information also from that solver, but I'm not sure. Can you confirm this please? <br>
> > Also, as the vectors I want are given by V_m^(-1)*x_i=y_i (following the notation on the Report), my idea to get them was to retrieve the invariant subspace V_m (with EPSGetInvariantSubspace), invert it, and then multiply it with the eigenvectors that I get with EPSGetEigenvector. Is there another easier (or with less computations) way to get this?<br>
> <br>
> In Krylov-Schur the tridiagonal matrix T_m becomes arrowhead-plus-tridiagonal. Apart from this, it should be equivalent. The relevant information can be obtained with EPSGetBV() and EPSGetDS(). But this is a "developer level" interface. We could help you get this running. Send a small problem matrix to slepc-maint together with a more detailed description of what you need to compute.<br>
> <br>
> Thanks! When I get to that part I'll write to slepc-maint for help.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Jose<br>
> <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Jose<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > > El 23 oct 2018, a las 12:13, Ale Foggia <<a href="mailto:amfoggia@gmail.com" target="_blank">amfoggia@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Hello, <br>
> > > <br>
> > > I'm currently using Lanczos solver (EPSLANCZOS) to get the smallest real eigenvalue (EPS_SMALLEST_REAL) of a Hermitian problem (EPS_HEP). Those are the only options I set for the solver. My aim is to be able to predict/estimate the time-to-solution. To do so, I was doing a scaling of the code for different sizes of matrices and for different number of MPI processes. As I was not observing a good scaling I checked the number of iterations of the solver (given by EPSGetIterationNumber). I've encounter that for the **same size** of matrix (that meaning, the same problem), when I change the number of MPI processes, the amount of iterations changes, and the behaviour is not monotonic. This are the numbers I've got:<br>
> > > <br>
> > > # procs # iters<br>
> > > 960 157<br>
> > > 992 189<br>
> > > 1024 338<br>
> > > 1056 190<br>
> > > 1120 174<br>
> > > 2048 136<br>
> > > <br>
> > > I've checked the mailing list for a similar situation and I've found another person with the same problem but in another solver ("[SLEPc] GD is not deterministic when using different number of cores", Nov 19 2015), but I think the solution this person finds does not apply to my problem (removing "-eps_harmonic" option).<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Can you give me any hint on what is the reason for this behaviour? Is there a way to prevent this? It's not possible to estimate/predict any time consumption for bigger problems if the number of iterations varies this much.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Ale<br>
> > <br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>