[petsc-dev] Integrating PFLOTRAN, PETSC & SAMRAI

[Bobby Philip]

Barry:

Them is SAMRAI. Not sure whether you should kick or use some gentler means :-)

On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Barry Smith wrote:

> 
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Bobby Philip wrote:
> 
>> What usually breaks for me is VecNorm caching, arguments for functions, 
>> and introduction of new functions. Once in a while the PETScObject structure
>> changes and that causes trouble too. But this is my usual list.
>> 
>> Any time petsc-dev changes, I end up having to build:
>> 
>> 1. SAMRAI
>> 2. SAMRUtils
>> 3. SAMRSolvers
>> 4. PFLOTRAN
>> 
>> with stops along the way to fix anything that broke mainly in 1 and 4. Also, SAMRAI
>> continues to only want to support version 2.3.3 of PETSc so I end up keeping tabs
>> on what needs to be changed with each new SAMRAI version. A set of automated
>> tests I hope might be the right catalyst to move them
> 
>  Bobby,
> 
>     Who is them? Frankly this is absurd, that's like saying they are not going to use a computer after the Sparc 2. If anyone is "using"/developing SAMRAI with 2.3.3 that is not real work, it is merely pretending. Whose butt should we kick?
> 
> 
>   Barry
> 
> 
> 
>> to the present generation(s) of PETSc.
>> 
>> Bobby
>> 
>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Bobby Philip <philipb at ornl.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Barry:
>>>> 
>>>> I heartily agree with all that you have said. Thanks for your suggestions.
>>>> I do believe what you have suggested is the best both in the shorter and
>>>> longer term. As a clarification on freezing the petsc-dev version, my
>>>> suggestion was to freeze
>>>> the version for a few months at a time as it reduces the burden on me on
>>>> fixing frequent breakages.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> We don't have to bog down pflotran-dev with particulars, but can you
>>> characterize what breaks
>>> most often for you, or what you find yourself doing most often for SAMRAI?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>>   Matt
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bobby
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the mid to longer term we need to make sure that SAMRAI has more
>>>> resources than a one man operation, so this is something that needs coverage
>>>> in the next round of SciDAC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When dealing with tracking package changes I've found the best way is
>>>> to track them continuously so each new issue (due to a change) gets fixed
>>>> immediately rather than waiting until a bunch of stuff is broken before
>>>> fixing it.  This way determining what change broke what, is much easier.
>>>> This means we should set up nightly tests of PETSc+SAMRAI+PFLOTRAN and deal
>>>> with each issue the day after it breaks instead of weeks later. Probably
>>>> Richard could set up such a test and have it send email to say Richard,
>>>> Bobby and I each time a breakage occurs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Barry
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Lichtner, Peter C wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Folks: we have a problem trying to integrate PFLOTRAN with PETSc and
>>>> SAMRAI. The basic problem is that when PETSc is updated it often breaks
>>>> SAMRAI in nontrivial ways. For PFLOTRAN itself the changes needed are
>>>> usually minor to bring PFLOTRAN back in sync with PETSc. But this is not the
>>>> case for SAMRAI. Bobby Philip, the lead on SAMRAI, does not have the
>>>> resources to develop the PFLOTRAN implementation of SAMRAI and keep it up to
>>>> date with changes in PETSc. The question is how to resolve this difficulty.
>>>> We have expended a considerable effort in adding SAMRAI to PFLOTRAN and
>>>> several directions of PFLOTRAN development rely on SAMRAI including
>>>> applications to CO2 sequestration, the Hanford uranium plume, and a hybrid
>>>> model using the lattice Boltzmann method at the pore scale coupled to the
>>>> Darcy continuum scale with SAMRAI providing the bridge between the two
>>>> scales. Bobby has suggested freezing the PETSc developer version used in
>>>> PFLOTRAN. However, this would potentially limit the development of PFLOTRAN.
>>>> An alternative approach is to create a separate branch of PFLOTRAN for use
>>>> with SAMRAI. However, this would limit our ability to develop a hybrid
>>>> model, not to mention causing difficulties down the road when the two
>>>> branches are finally merged. Any thoughts, suggestions, comments, etc.
>>>> appreciated on how we can best resolve this issue.
>>>>>> Thanks, ...Peter
>>>>>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>>>>>> Peter C. Lichtner (lichtner at lanl.gov)
>>>>>> LANL EES-16: MS D469
>>>>>> (505) 667-3420 (o), 665-3285 (fax), 795-2881 (cell)
>>>>>> Los Alamos National Laboratory
>>>>>> SM-30 Bikini Atoll Road
>>>>>> Los Alamos, NM 87545
>>>>>> blockedblockedblockedhttp://www.ees.lanl.gov/pflotran/
>>>>>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
>>> is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
>>> lead.
>>> -- Norbert Wiener
>> 
> 
>