[aspect-devel] Tracers and checkpointing

[Rene Gassmoeller]

Great!
Question for Wolfgang or Timo: How do we check if the boost version is
sufficient for deal.II? Is boost 1.54 on the list for compatible boost
versions for deal.II? If so, should it be removed, because it seems to
cause trouble for Max. If not, we should maybe look into the reason why
deal.II did not complain during the configuration.

Best,
Rene

On 12/10/2015 01:01 AM, Max Rudolph wrote:
> Rene,
> I recompiled deal.ii with the bundled boost using cmake. With bundled
> boost, aspect no longer encounters a segmentation fault when writing the
> tracers!
> 
> Best,
> Max
> 
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Rene Gassmoeller <rengas at gfz-potsdam.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> Max,
>> Let me put this on the mailing list, so that others are aware of what
>> might be causing issues with checkpoints.
>>
>> I confirmed that checkpoints for a deal.II with 64bit indices enabled
>> are not working at the moment (this was causing my issues), and will try
>> to create a patch for deal.II.
>>
>> But that means your problem must be something different. Could you try
>> using the bundled boost instead of 1.54 by setting
>> DEAL_II_FORCE_BUNDLED_BOOST=ON when running cmake or ccmake?
>>
>> Best,
>> Rene
>>
>>
>> On 12/09/2015 02:03 PM, Max Rudolph wrote:
>>> Rene,
>>> It looks like the boost version is whatever is provided by Ubuntu.
>> Version
>>> is reported as 1.54.0
>>>
>>> #  BOOST_VERSION = 1.54.0
>>> #            BOOST_INCLUDE_DIRS = /usr/include
>>> #            BOOST_USER_INCLUDE_DIRS = /usr/include
>>> #            BOOST_LIBRARIES =
>>>
>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libboost_iostreams.so;/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libboost_serialization.so;/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libboost_system.so;/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libboost_thread.so;pthread
>>>
>>> and 64 bit indices are turned off:
>>> #      ( DEAL_II_WITH_64BIT_INDICES = OFF )
>>>
>>>
>>> I can send you the whole detailed.log for deal.ii if that would help.
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Rene Gassmoeller <rengas at gfz-potsdam.de
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Max,
>>>> I am currently looking into the checkpoint issue. I have no clear result
>>>> yet, but could you check two things for me:
>>>>
>>>> Did you enable the 64bit_indices option when compiling deal.II? This
>>>> might not work for checkpointing, but I am in the process of testing it
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> Which version of boost do you use? The bundled one is 1.56 and should be
>>>> ok, but we know of a bug in 1.58 that will affect checkpointing.
>>>>
>>>> I will let you know, when I have a better idea of what is going on.
>>>>
>>>> Rene
>>>>
>>>> On 12/07/2015 01:23 PM, Max Rudolph wrote:
>>>>> I will try to get a clean-looking stack trace and open a ticket, but it
>>>>> might take until tomorrow. I will do a couple of tests to see whether
>> the
>>>>> segfault occurs even without tracers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Max
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Rene Gassmoeller <
>> rengas at gfz-potsdam.de
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>> I encountered the same problem just yesterday and did not yet figure
>> out
>>>>>> the reason. During development of the tracers I did check the
>>>>>> checkpointing (serial and parallel) and it seemed to work. It might
>>>>>> actually be unrelated to the tracers, since deal.II 8.2 seems to work
>>>>>> with the most recent aspect, but the current development version of
>>>>>> deal.II does not (does it work when tracers are disabled?). Still the
>>>>>> tracers are likely the reason. Please go ahead and open an issue to
>> let
>>>>>> others know as well. I will try to look into it during the next days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Rene
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/07/2015 12:01 PM, Max Rudolph wrote:
>>>>>>> Rene,
>>>>>>> When I tried to run a simple 2d calculation with tracers, aspect
>>>> crashed
>>>>>>> (seg faulted) when it reached a timestep for which checkpoint files
>>>> would
>>>>>>> be written. Is this a known issue? If not, I will open an 'issue' and
>>>> try
>>>>>>> to figure out what might be the problem. The machine that I
>> encountered
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> problem on is producing very ugly stack traces for some reason so I
>>>> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> fix this first...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>