|
[Sponsors] |
PETSC gives a slowdown instead of speedup (GAMG) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
February 22, 2021, 23:39 |
PETSC gives a slowdown instead of speedup (GAMG)
|
#1 |
Member
Junting Chen
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 10 |
Hello all, I am a beginner on Petsc library. Basically I am using boomerAMG configurations listed in this paper.
https://prace-ri.eu/wp-content/uploa...-Framework.pdf Comparing performance using SIMPLE algorism, Petsc pressure solver takes 4 times of the time that GAMG pressure solver takes. The simulations is relatively simple, 2million cells of flow passing bluff body running on 22 CPU. I don't think this is right... I have seen quite a lot of people saying Petsc being the better one (similar or faster speed, better scaling). I guess petsc solver was not properly configured in my case. I haven't spent much time on understanding the math behind Petsc. Just want to know whether Petsc solver's performance/stability is heavily relied on input parameters. Thanks! Junting |
|
Tags |
petsc |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Suppress twoPhaseEulerFoam energy | AlmostSurelyRob | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 33 | September 25, 2018 17:45 |
chtMultiRegionSimpleFoam turbulent case | Aditya Patil | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 6 | April 24, 2017 22:13 |
rhoSimplecFoam Mach0.8 no pressure values | CFDnewbie147 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 16 | November 23, 2013 05:58 |
pimpleFoam: turbulence->correct(); is not executed when using residualControl | hfs | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | October 29, 2013 08:35 |
Differences between serial and parallel runs | carsten | OpenFOAM Bugs | 11 | September 12, 2008 11:16 |