2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0045-7825(99)00242-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multifrontal parallel distributed symmetric and unsymmetric solvers

Abstract: We consider the solution of both symmetric and unsymmetric systems of sparse linear equations. A new parallel distributed memory multifrontal approach is described. To handle numerical pivoting e ciently, a parallel asynchronous algorithm with dynamic scheduling of the computing tasks has been developed. We discuss some of the main algorithmic choices and compare both implementation issues and the performance of the LDL T and LU factorizations. Performance analysis on an IBM SP2 shows the e ciency and the pote… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
546
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 806 publications
(558 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
546
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This partitioner intensively uses subroutines provided by METIS [38]. The factorization of each sub-matrices is performed thanks to a direct sparse solver [9,10] and stored during the resolution of the interface problem. The interface problem uses a crude GMRES method without any preconditioner.…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This partitioner intensively uses subroutines provided by METIS [38]. The factorization of each sub-matrices is performed thanks to a direct sparse solver [9,10] and stored during the resolution of the interface problem. The interface problem uses a crude GMRES method without any preconditioner.…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The efficiency of the method mainly depends on the ability of inverting the associated global sparse linear system. This type of problem is strongly dimension dependent and, if in 2D, the use of direct solvers like [9][10][11][12] is obvious (a typical scattering problem with 10 6 unknowns is solved in few dozen of seconds on a classical PC), the resolution of the linear system arising from the discretization of 3D configurations with a direct solver is much more tricky, time and memory consuming.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, we set the constant γ appearing in the interior penalty parameter σ defined by (3.6) equal to 10. The resulting system of nonlinear equations is solved by a damped Newton method; for each inner (linear) iteration, we employ the Multifrontal Massively Parallel Solver (MUMPS); see Amestoy et al (2000Amestoy et al ( , 2001Amestoy et al ( , 2006. The hp-adaptive meshes are constructed by first marking the elements for refinement/derefinement according to the size of the local error indicators η K ; this is achieved via a fixed fraction strategy where the refinement and derefinement fractions are set to 25% and 5%, respectively.…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The internal forces are computed by solving non-linear equations for each finite element. The computing time and costs for these steps are negligible compared to solving linear system (6). The stiffness matrix, K , is symmetric and positive definite for elastic, constrained systems; hence, ∀u = 0 : u T K u > 0 and all eigenvalues of K are positive.…”
Section: Problem Definition: Composite Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An important advantage of direct solution methods is their robustness: they can, to a large extent, be used as black boxes for solving a wide range of problems, but they are expensive in terms of computational costs. Several high quality, well parallelisable public domain direct solvers exist [32,38,42,10,6]. The FETI and AMG methods are also robust but are often much less expensive than direct solution methods and have been discussed in [23] and [49].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%