CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Programming & Development

performance compared to Fluent

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   November 17, 2010, 05:50
Default performance compared to Fluent
  #1
New Member
 
Patricia
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 6
schmittp54 is on a distinguished road
Dear developers,
we have compared the cpu time of a pitzDaily case with 1million cells with an equivalent Fluent setup on 1..16 nodes (infiniBand). Apparently Fluent runs approximately 6 times to 13 times faster (on 1 and 16 nodes respectively).

We were anticipating similar performance, because the FVM concept of both programs seems to be very similar. Does anybody know which part of Fluent is giving the advantage? Is it memory management, linear solver implementation or other? (Not talking about different speedup in paralell, because even the serial performance is not comparable).

Have attempts been made to improve Openfoam with the help of PETSc solvers and data structures?

Thanks
Patricia
schmittp54 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 07:18
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 368
Rep Power: 10
arjun is on a distinguished road
how did the single processor time compares??


From my personal experience , Fluent is very fast and efficient. Its difficult to beat it on time per iteration.
arjun is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 08:49
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Patricia
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 6
schmittp54 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjun View Post
how did the single processor time compares??


From my personal experience , Fluent is very fast and efficient. Its difficult to beat it on time per iteration.
Yes, the single processor cpu time was also close to 6 times faster with fluent.
The question is whether Fluent was just heavily optimized or whether Openfoam has some design flaw - which I don't assume - that could easily be fixed for example by using optimized libraries like PETSc.
Openfoam is a great project, but some advantages of the open source distribution are lost if production use costs a multiple of commercial tools because jobs need an order of magnitude longer of an order of magnitude more hardware nodes. Of course, this is the fate of most open source projects. But if somebody could identify which part of the implementation has the highest potential to improve efficiency, I would like to investigate alternative implementations.

Thanks
Patricia
schmittp54 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 12:36
Default
  #4
Assistant Moderator
 
Bernhard Gschaider
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,912
Rep Power: 40
gschaider will become famous soon enoughgschaider will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmittp54 View Post
Yes, the single processor cpu time was also close to 6 times faster with fluent.
The question is whether Fluent was just heavily optimized or whether Openfoam has some design flaw - which I don't assume - that could easily be fixed for example by using optimized libraries like PETSc.
Openfoam is a great project, but some advantages of the open source distribution are lost if production use costs a multiple of commercial tools because jobs need an order of magnitude longer of an order of magnitude more hardware nodes. Of course, this is the fate of most open source projects. But if somebody could identify which part of the implementation has the highest potential to improve efficiency, I would like to investigate alternative implementations.

Thanks
Patricia
Have you made sure that the numerical setup is equivalent? For instance the default values of the residuals in Fluent are ridicioulusly high as far as far as I remember. Which solvers have you used for the pressure-equation (as that usually eats the most time)?
gschaider is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 13:12
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Christian Lucas
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Posts: 198
Rep Power: 7
Chris Lucas is on a distinguished road
Hi,

could you please give more information about your setup, maybe upload it (without grid)?

What type of linear solver did you use in OpenFoam?

Did you use a coupled or a segregated solver in fluent?

Regards,
Christian
Chris Lucas is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 18:07
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 368
Rep Power: 10
arjun is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmittp54 View Post
Yes, the single processor cpu time was also close to 6 times faster with fluent.
The question is whether Fluent was just heavily optimized or whether Openfoam has some design flaw - which I don't assume - that could easily be fixed for example by using optimized libraries like PETSc.
Openfoam is a great project, but some advantages of the open source distribution are lost if production use costs a multiple of commercial tools because jobs need an order of magnitude longer of an order of magnitude more hardware nodes. Of course, this is the fate of most open source projects. But if somebody could identify which part of the implementation has the highest potential to improve efficiency, I would like to investigate alternative implementations.

Thanks
Patricia

Actually not. I have been comparing my inavier with Fluent/starccm+ for quite a long time. And I can tell you that it many times beat Fluent/starccm+ for time per iteration. If i do not use gradient limiter than i am roughly 2 times faster than Fluent.



Edited to add: Based on my observations the main reason for Fluent's speed is its multigrid solver. It does converse very fast. Now both openFOAM and Fluent use additive corrective multigrid. Usually additive corrective multigrid is slow for all neumann BSc. (Wall bounded flows with outflow BC). But in Fluent's case convergence does not suffer that much. My guess is openFOAM's Poisson solver is not that fast. (so if you use 1 million or larger meshes difference should show).

Further, inavier uses smoothed aggregation multigrid. So it is faster than additive corrective multigrid. BUT set up time for this multigrid is very high. There is one version of Poisson solver that only does set up once per simulation (this version can beat Fluent on time per iteration, probably 2 times faster than fluent).

Last edited by arjun; November 18, 2010 at 19:52.
arjun is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fluent setup to determine fan performance afaik FLUENT 5 August 1, 2014 04:27
Fluent 6.3.26 vs 12.1 and partition method Anorky FLUENT 0 April 27, 2010 10:55
Fluent connection with simulink by TCP/IP Tanktruck Fluent UDF and Scheme Programming 1 June 28, 2009 12:56
Parallel performance OpenFoam Vs Fluent prapanj Main CFD Forum 0 March 26, 2009 06:43
Parallel Performance of Fluent Soheyl FLUENT 2 October 30, 2005 07:11


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:11.