feat: hypre improvements #3339
feat: hypre improvements #3339
Conversation
|
Here is a quick test I ran on a version of SPE10 with burdens, compositional poromechanics, though with homogeneous properties, (so its just a high perm slab between two low perm boxes). Should be about 40 million DoF, and I ran on Dane. Here were the results with develop a few weeks ago
Here are the results with the new Hypre
Note that this does not double the number of nodes for each test, I will do that now |
|
Old results for heterogeneous SPE10 compositional poromechanics on CPU (dane)
New results for heterogeneous SPE10 compositional poromechanics on CPU (dane)
|
…/GEOS into feature/paludettomag1/hypre-sdc
…er in several functions
…/GEOS into feature/paludettomag1/hypre-sdc
| HYPRE_SetUmpirePinnedPoolName( "HYPRE_PINNED" ); | ||
| #endif | ||
|
|
||
| HYPRE_SetLogLevel( getenv( "HYPRE_LOG_LEVEL" ) ? atoi( getenv( "HYPRE_LOG_LEVEL" ) ) : 0 ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can it be set by linear solver log level?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but I did this way because the information provided here is mainly for developers. Other libraries such as umpire and rocsparse work this way as well (using env variable). I am open to change the strategy here if needeed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sounds reasonable, thanks, no need to change
…/GEOS into feature/paludettomag1/hypre-sdc
| @@ -80,7 +80,6 @@ HydrofractureSolver< POROMECHANICS_SOLVER >::HydrofractureSolver( const string & | |||
| // This may need to be different depending on whether poroelasticity is on or not. | |||
| m_linearSolverParameters.get().mgr.strategy = LinearSolverParameters::MGR::StrategyType::hydrofracture; | |||
| m_linearSolverParameters.get().mgr.separateComponents = false; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@victorapm how about this one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I need to check this one with @rrsettgast @castelletto1 and @CusiniM, but I guess SDC for the fracture displacements is not very useful so I left it false. I can be wrong though
|
We are investigating a few convergence issues with Poromechanics runs using this branch. @drmichaeltcvx, please you can put your tests on hold until the issue is sorted out |
separateComponentsoption to mechanics solver setup in MGRaddCommaSeparatorsto StringUtilitiesRequires GEOS-DEV/thirdPartyLibs#286