UMFPACK out of memory
francois pacull
fpacull at fluorem.com
Tue Oct 27 10:56:06 CDT 2009
Thank you Matt for your quick reply.
I will try to use MUMPS soon. About UMFPACK, the OS used is a 64-bit
Linux one. Also, we do have 64-bit pointers from what I understand; the
following lines are from the PETSc configure.log file:
#ifndef PETSC_SIZEOF_VOID_P
#define PETSC_SIZEOF_VOID_P 8
#endif
And here is the umfpack_UMF_report_info from the subdomain that crashed:
UMFPACK V5.4.0 (May 20, 2009), Info:
matrix entry defined as: double
Int (generic integer) defined as: int
BLAS library used: Fortran BLAS. size of BLAS integer: 4
MATLAB: no.
CPU timer: POSIX times ( ) routine.
number of rows in matrix A: 79002
number of columns in matrix A: 79002
entries in matrix A: 12030970
memory usage reported in: 8-byte Units
size of int: 4 bytes
size of UF_long: 8 bytes
size of pointer: 8 bytes
size of numerical entry: 8 bytes
strategy used: unsymmetric
ordering used: colamd on A
modify Q during factorization: yes
prefer diagonal pivoting: no
pivots with zero Markowitz cost: 0
submatrix S after removing zero-cost pivots:
number of "dense" rows: 0
number of "dense" columns: 0
number of empty rows: 0
number of empty columns 0
submatrix S square and diagonal preserved
symbolic factorization defragmentations: 0
symbolic memory usage (Units): 27435792
symbolic memory usage (MBytes): 209.3
Symbolic size (Units): 177636
Symbolic size (MBytes): 1
symbolic factorization CPU time (sec): 4.95
symbolic factorization wallclock time(sec): 4.95
symbolic/numeric factorization: upper bound
actual %
variable-sized part of Numeric object:
initial size (Units) 31236744
- -
peak size (Units) 597607658
- -
final size (Units) 550474688
- -
Numeric final size (Units) 550988250
- -
Numeric final size (MBytes) 4203.7
- -
peak memory usage (Units) 598718594
- -
peak memory usage (MBytes) 4567.9
- -
numeric factorization flops 1.63141e+12
- -
nz in L (incl diagonal) 171352664
- -
nz in U (incl diagonal) 346187947
- -
nz in L+U (incl diagonal) 517461609
- -
largest front (# entries) 15783705
- -
largest # rows in front 2815
- -
largest # columns in front 5607
- -
UMFPACK V5.4.0 (May 20, 2009): ERROR: out of memory
Thanks again,
francois.
Matthew Knepley a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM, francois pacull <fpacull at fluorem.com
> <mailto:fpacull at fluorem.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear PETSc team,
>
> I have a few questions... During the resolution of a linear system
> in parallel, I am trying to apply a local LU solver to each of the
> SEQaij diagonal blocks of a MPIaij matrix partitioned with PARMETIS.
>
> - I started with MUMPS but it seems that it only works with
> unpartitioned aij matrices, is it really the case? Or could we use
> MUMPS to build an additive Schwarz preconditioner for example?
>
>
> You can use MUMPS for the subproblem solver.
>
>
> - Then I tried UMFPACK. This works fine when the diagonal blocks
> (and the memory required to store the factors) are small but
> crashes when they are a little bit larger. For example with a
> "numeric final size" of 4203.7 MBytes, I got the following
> message "ERROR: out of memory" while there was plenty of memory
> left in the computer. I tried either with the UMFPACK version 5.2,
> downloaded by PETSc, or with a manually installed version 5.4,
> linked to PETSc. Is this a behavior from UMFPACK that you already
> experienced?
>
>
> Send all the error output. However, in oder to address more than 4G,
> you will need 64-bit pointers.
>
> - Since UMFPACK seemed to have a memory limit around 4096 MB, I
> tried to install a PETSc version with the option
> "--with-64-bit-indices", however none of the partitioning packages
> could be compiled with this option
> (parmetis,chaco,jostle,party,scotch). Is there a way to compile
> PETSc with 64 bit indices AND a partitioning package?
>
>
> Not that I know of.
>
>
> - Finally, I tried to modify the PETSc source code umfpack.c so
> that it would deal with 64 bit indices, but I only ended up so far
> with a segmentation violation message at the execution... Is it
> the only way I could use UMPACK with large sparse matrices?
>
>
> Why not just upgrade to a 64-bit OS if you want to address so much
> memory on a single machine?
>
> Matt
>
>
> Thank you,
> Regards,
> francois pacull.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
More information about the petsc-users
mailing list