[petsc-users] mumps freezes for bigger problems

[Hailong Xiao]

Hi Hong

I got the error from MUMPS.

When I run MUMPS (which requring scalapack) with matrix size (n) = 30620,
nonzeros (nz) = 785860,
I could run it. And could get result.
But when I run it with
nz=3112820
n =61240


I am getting the following error


17 - <NO ERROR MESSAGE> : Could not convert index 1140850688 into a pointer
The index may be an incorrect argument.
Possible sources of this problem are a missing "include 'mpif.h'",
a misspelled MPI object (e.g., MPI_COM_WORLD instead of MPI_COMM_WORLD)
or a misspelled user variable for an MPI object (e.g.,
com instead of comm).
[17] [] Aborting Program!



Do you know what happened?
Is that possible it is running out of memory?

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Hong Zhang <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Direct solvers often require large memory for storing matrix factors.
> As Jed suggests, you may try superlu_dist.
>
> With mumps, I notice you use parallel analysis, which is relative new in
> mumps.
> What happens if you use default sequential analysis with
> different matrix orderings?
> I usually use matrix ordering '-mat_mumps_icntl_7 2'.
>
> Also, you can increase fill ratio,
> -mat_mumps_icntl_14 <20>: ICNTL(14): percentage of estimated workspace
> increase (None)
> i.e., default ration is 20, you may try 50? (I notice that you already use
> 30).
>
> It seems you use 16 CPUs for "a mere couple thousands
> elements" problems, and mumps "silently freezes". I do not have this type
> of experience with mumps. I usually can solve sparse matrix of size
> 10k with 1 cpu using mumps.
> When mumps runs out of memory or gets other problems, it terminates
> execution and dumps out error message,
> not freezes.
> Something is wrong here. Use a debugger and figuring out where it freezes.
>
> Hong
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > -pc_type lu -pc_factor_mat_solver_package superlu_dist
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2011 6:19 AM, "Dominik Szczerba" <dominik at itis.ethz.ch>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am successfully solving my indefinite systems with MUMPS but only
> >> for very small problems. To give a feeling, a mere couple thousands
> >> elements. If I only double the problem size, it silently freezes, even
> >> with max verbosity via the control parameters. Did anyone succeed here
> >> with big problems? Any recommendations for a drop-in replacement for
> >> MUMPS?
> >>
> >> Thanks for any hints,
> >> Dominik
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Options used:
> >> -mat_mumps_icntl_4 3 -mat_mumps_icntl_28 2 -mat_mumps_icntl_29
> >>
> >> Output:
> >>
> >> ****** FACTORIZATION STEP ********
> >>
> >>
> >>  GLOBAL STATISTICS PRIOR NUMERICAL FACTORIZATION ...
> >>  NUMBER OF WORKING PROCESSES              =          16
> >>  OUT-OF-CORE OPTION (ICNTL(22))           =           0
> >>  REAL SPACE FOR FACTORS                   =  1438970073
> >>  INTEGER SPACE FOR FACTORS                =    11376442
> >>  MAXIMUM FRONTAL SIZE (ESTIMATED)         =       16868
> >>  NUMBER OF NODES IN THE TREE              =       43676
> >>  Convergence error after scaling for ONE-NORM (option 7/8)   = 0.21D+01
> >>  Maximum effective relaxed size of S              =   231932340
> >>  Average effective relaxed size of S              =   182366303
> >>
> >>  REDISTRIB: TOTAL DATA LOCAL/SENT         =     1509215    22859750
> >>  GLOBAL TIME FOR MATRIX DISTRIBUTION       =      0.8270
> >>  ** Memory relaxation parameter ( ICNTL(14)  )            :        35
> >>  ** Rank of processor needing largest memory in facto     :         0
> >>  ** Space in MBYTES used by this processor for facto      :      2017
> >>  ** Avg. Space in MBYTES per working proc during facto    :      1618
>



-- 
Hailong
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20111221/8ee3d5ac/attachment.htm>