question on DA's and performance

[Randall Mackie]

Barry,

Can you give some advice, or do you have any examples, on how to set
the block size in MatCreateMPIBAIJ?

Randy


Barry Smith wrote:
> 
>   Randy,
> 
>     1) I'd first change the scaling of the
>> with coefficient matrix values set to 1.0), 
> to match the other diagonal entries in the matrix. For example, if the
> diagonal entries are usually 10,000 then multiply the "boundary condition"
> rows by 10,000. (Note the diagonal entries may be proportional to h, or 
> 1/h etc
> so make sure you get the same scaling in your boundary condition rows. 
> For example,
> if the diagonal entries double when you refine the grid make sure your
> "boundary condition" equations scale the same way.)
> 
>   2) Are you using AIJ or BAIJ matrices? BAIJ is likely much better
> in your "new" code because it uses point block ILU(k) instead of point 
> ILU(k).
> 
>   3) Are you using -pc_type bjacobi or -pc_type asm (and what did you do 
> in the previous version?).
> 
>   4) If you use LU on the blocks does it work better than ILU(0) in 
> terms of iterations? A little, a lot? If just a little I suggest trying 
> -pc_type asm
> 
>   Let us know how things go, you should be able to get similar convergence
> using the DAs.
> 
>    Barry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Randall Mackie wrote:
> 
>> I've been using Petsc for a few years with reasonably good success. My 
>> application is
>> 3D EM forward modeling and inversion.
>>
>> What has been working well is basically an adaptation of what I did in 
>> serial mode,
>> by solving the following system of equations:
>>
>> |Mxx Mxy Mxz| |Hx|   |bx|
>> |Myx Myy Myz| |Hy| = |by|
>> |Mzx Mzy Mzz| |Hz|   |bz|
>>
>> Because this system is very stiff and ill-conditioned, the 
>> preconditioner that has
>> been successfully used is the ILU(k) of the diagonal sub-blocks of the 
>> coefficient
>> matrix only, not the ILU(k) of the entire matrix.
>>
>>
>> I've tried, with less success, converting to distributed arrays, 
>> because in reality
>> my program requires alternating between solving the system above, and 
>> solving
>> another system based on the divergences of the magnetic field, and so 
>> this requires
>> a lot of message passing between the nodes. I think that using DA's 
>> would require
>> passing only the ghost values instead of all the values as I am now 
>> doing.
>>
>> So I coded up DA's, and it works, but only okay, and not as well as 
>> the case above.
>> The main problem is that it seems to work best for ILU(0), whereas the 
>> case above
>> works better and better with the more fill-in specified. I think I've 
>> tried every
>> possible option, but I can't get any improvement over just using 
>> ILU(0), but the problem
>> is that with ILU(0), it takes too many iterations, and so the total 
>> time is more
>> than when I use my original method with, say, ILU(8).
>>
>> The differences between using DA's and the approach above is that the 
>> fields are
>> interlaced in DA's, and the boundary values are included as unknowns 
>> (with coefficient
>> matrix values set to 1.0), whereas my original way the boundary values 
>> are
>> incorporated in the right-hand side. Maybe that hurts the condition of 
>> my system.
>>
>> I would really like to use DA's to improve on the efficiency of the 
>> code, but I
>> can't figure out how to do that.
>>
>> It was suggested to me last year to use PCFIELDSPLIT, but there are no 
>> examples,
>> and I'm not a c programmer so it's hard for me to look at the source 
>> code and
>> know what to do. (I'm only just now able to get back to this).
>>
>> Does anyone do any prescaling of their systems? If so, does anyone 
>> have examples
>> of how this can be done?
>>
>> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks, Randy
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Randall Mackie
GSY-USA, Inc.
PMB# 643
2261 Market St.,
San Francisco, CA 94114-1600
Tel (415) 469-8649
Fax (415) 469-5044

California Registered Geophysicist
License No. GP 1034