[aspect-devel] Using MUMPS through Trillions instead of PETSc

[Timo Heister]

> I saw deal.II has the capability to use MUMPS through Trillions through the
> SolverDirect class:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.dealii.org_8.4.1_doxygen_deal.II_classTrilinosWrappers-5F1-5F1SolverDirect.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=c08Btfq4m9QEScXN3ZQwLZzzWQE7S8CYq1IYuzKV_Zk&m=WqHvTxGttdmdeKTLKkUCQDnDtDhtDP5fdaIgVKdwdZE&s=BoLSc86Lhci2Z6jfiArFykODyz62pKP7QBinfcqErOs&e= 

We currently don't expose this, but if you go into solver.cc you will
find the line

        TrilinosWrappers::SolverDirect solver(cn);

If you change that to

TrilinosWrappers::SolverDirect::AdditionalData data(false, "Amesos_Mumps");
TrilinosWrappers::SolverDirect solver(cn, data);

and you configure Trilinos with mumps (not enabled by default), you
should be good to go.

> However, the few discussions I’ve seen regarding using MUMPS through
> Trillions are not entirely encouraging :)

The first link you posted is about using MUMPS directly in deal.II
(which we removed) and has nothing to do with using it through
Trilinos. But yes, MUMPS is a nightmare to install/use.

> In reality, my interest is not explicitly with MUMPS but rather a parallel
> direct solver option (MUMPS, PARDISO, etc).

You might try superlu (also through Trilinos). But let me ask, what is
the reason you are looking into direct solvers? While they might help
for very ill-conditioned problems, I doubt that you will have good
results on large 3d problems.

-- 
Timo Heister
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~heister/