[petsc-dev] PETSc LU vs SuperLU

[Stefano Zampini]

Try UMFPACK. The fastest for my linear solves.

2011/12/20 Dave Nystrom <dnystrom1 at comcast.net>

> I have been comparing sequential SuperLU on one of my linear solves versus
> PETSc LU.  I am finding SuperLU to be a little over 2x slower than PETSc
> LU.
> I was wondering if this is due to SuperLU not being tuned to my problem or
> if
> the PETSc LU algorithm performance is expected to be superior to that of
> SuperLU in general.  I did play around with the reordering options for
> SuperLU but did not find anything superior to the defaults.  I was also
> wondering if building PETSc and its external packages with another compiler
> such as PGI or Intel might result in higher performance in this regard.  Or
> whether using a vendor blas like MKL would speed up SuperLU.  Or perhaps
> the
> interface of SuperLU to PETSc results in some extra data copying that is
> the
> difference.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why SuperLU might be that much slower than PETSc
> LU?
>
> I also tried spooles and that was just a little slower than PETSc LU.  And
> I
> tried MUMPS and that seg faulted after my problem had been running over an
> hour.  This particular problem was running for less than 3 minutes with
> PETSc
> LU.
>
> I would be interested in any suggestions of things to try to speed up my LU
> solve with either PETSc or any of the external packages.  Right now, I'm
> just
> doing serial, single node calculations.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>



-- 
Stefano
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111220/64602db5/attachment.html>