[petsc-users] Hypre's BoomerAMG vs PETSc's GAMG?

[Justin Chang]

Okay I will just experiment around with these then. Thanks for the input
everyone

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Mark Adams <mfadams at lbl.gov> wrote:

> And I will just add that performance is sensitive to parameters. The
> defaults try to be conservative and hypre's seem to be geared for 2D low
> order discretizations.  GAMG is probably a bit more geared for 3D.  If you
> are interested in looking this carefully you can run GAMG with '-info', and
> grep on GAMG, and send us the results and we can verify that it running OK.
> Also run with -log_summary and send that separately.  The two solvers
> should be about the same speed on your problem.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
>
>> Justin Chang <jychang48 at gmail.com> writes:
>> > I see that there's GAMG and there's Hypre's BoomerAMG (and perhaps
>> others
>> > too?)
>>
>> ML
>>
>> > What exactly is the difference between these two? Do they have very
>> > different implementations under the hood? Does one have better
>> > scalability over another? Or more importantly, when would I choose one
>> > over the other?
>>
>> BoomerAMG is classical AMG, which is a different coarsening strategy
>> From GAMG and ML which use smoothed aggregation.  The math is different
>> and the implementation is different.  ML and GAMG have similar math and
>> there exist configurations that are equivalent.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20150921/440c2225/attachment.html>