[aspect-devel] Using MUMPS through Trillions instead of PETSc
c.thieulot at uu.nl
Sat Feb 25 10:57:30 PST 2017
out of curiosity, for our type of applications/matrices, which solver (SuperLU or MUMPS) do you think would be better/faster/less memory consuming/etc … ?
> On 22 Feb 2017, at 15:08, Timo Heister <heister at clemson.edu> wrote:
>> I saw deal.II has the capability to use MUMPS through Trillions through the
>> SolverDirect class:
> 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
> Aspect-devel mailing list
> Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org
More information about the Aspect-devel