Some questions regarding PETsc

Matthew Knepley knepley at
Fri Dec 22 19:24:16 CST 2006

On 12/22/06, Ben Tay <zonexo at> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have some questions regarding the use of PETsc...
> 1. Is Intel MKL much faster than the downloaded BLAS/LAPACK? Or is it true
> only for really large problem? Is ATLAS a good alternative too?

This depends heavily on the architecture and on the BLAS operations
used. I don't
think it much faster, but Satish may know better.

> 2. Can shared library be use in win32? I tried using --with-shared but after
> ./configure it still reports shared library disabled

No, we never had the time/manpower to implement the completely different Windows
paradigm for dynamic libraries.


> Thank you very much
> Regards.

One trouble is that despite this system, anyone who reads journals widely
and critically is forced to realize that there are scarcely any bars to eventual
publication. There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too
trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too
warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too
inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving,
no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and
no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. --
Drummond Rennie

More information about the petsc-users mailing list