Re: [deal.II] Re: Lecture 31.65(Picard iteration)

Thank you for your relpy > But you could try to just set matrices and vectors to zero, and see > whether that makes a difference. > > As you mentioned, in "assemble_system()", I replace "system_rhs.reinit" and "solution.reinit" with for (unsigned int i=0;ihttp://www.dealii.org/ For maili

Re: [deal.II] Re: Question regarding P:D:Tria

On 03/05/2017 11:44 AM, RAJAT ARORA wrote: Thanks for the prompt reply. Yes, I thought about this as deal.ii uses P4est which does not support anisotropic refinement. I wanted to confirm that this was indeed the case and I am not missing something. Correct. I'm going to add to both your que

Re: [deal.II] Isoparametric testing

On 03/05/2017 05:19 PM, Lukas Bystricky wrote: I'm trying to test the convergence rates of isoparametric elements for the Poisson equation. To do this I have a circular domain and an exact solution. My understanding is that with linear mappings I should not get optimal convergence in the L2 and H

Re: [deal.II] Re: Announcing the deal.II Code Gallery

On 03/06/2017 08:14 PM, Michael Harmon wrote: The doxygen.log file seems to get deleted... but here's the copy of it I took right before the error gets thrown and it is deleted. Hm, yes, that is not helpful. Do you get to see more in terms of errors if you do make VERBOSE=1 ? At the least, y

Re: [deal.II] Re: Lecture 31.65(Picard iteration)

On 03/06/2017 06:04 PM, hanks0...@gmail.com wrote: It seems that the error is greatly reduced... So, It seems that I can't ignore this difference. Could you please explain to me what makes this big difference?? Reinit is equivalent to * resize * set contents to zero In your case, the resizing

Re: [deal.II] Re: Announcing the deal.II Code Gallery

The doxygen.log file seems to get deleted... but here's the copy of it I took right before the error gets thrown and it is deleted. I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I'm building this on a mac where I am using a terminal that is launched by the deal.II app. Thanks, Mike On Monday, Ma

[deal.II] Re: Lecture 31.65(Picard iteration)

I'm sorry, please let me ask you one more question > Why is that expected? It should be the same. The new sparsity_pattern > should be the same as the old one > > > According to your comment, I remove system_matrix.reinit(sparsity_pattern) only (system_rhs.reinit and solution.reinit are no

[deal.II] Re: Lecture 31.65(Picard iteration)

Thanks for your reply please let me check that I understand what you mean. > The new sparsity_pattern should be the same as the old one and you still > have the same number of degrees of freedom. That's why there is no need to > do the reinit. > As I mentioned, the results from two cases ar

Re: [deal.II] Re: Announcing the deal.II Code Gallery

On 03/06/2017 03:59 PM, Michael Harmon wrote: down and I get the error attached as a picture... any ideas on what's going wrong? Not sure -- can you look into doxygen.log see if there are errors? Maybe attach the whole thing? Best W. -- --

[deal.II] Re: Announcing the deal.II Code Gallery

actually, i am having issues... When I build the documentation on my local machine without the code-gallery file everything works. However, with the code-gallery, it breaks

[deal.II] Re: Configuring deal.ii error - can't pinpoint what the issue is

Hi all, I've finally managed to install ASPECT. Candi required a number of modifications. I'll post here what was needed for future reference: vi candi.cfg was edited to look like below: #Choose configuration and components of deal.II DEAL_CONFOPTS=" \ -D DEAL_II_COMPONENT_PARAMETER_GUI=O

Re: [deal.II] Re: mpirun error when n_proc is not a factor of n_cells

Hi I had residual.compress (VectorOperation::add); in the cell loop which probably meant that not all processors would be called at the same time. I don't get the error mentioned above when I move the line outside the loop. On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 8:49:36 PM UTC+2, Tobi Young wrote: > > >

Re: [deal.II] Isoparametric testing

I guess I'm in good company then. ;-) That fixed my problem. Thanks! On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 8:54:13 AM UTC-5, Timo Heister wrote: > > > Am I correct in this assumption? If so, is there a good way to test the > > convergence rates and demonstrate sub-optimal convergence for linear > > mappi

[deal.II] Re: MeshWorker clarifications

Franco, First of all, I have read this question > , > > and I read that MeshWorker is sort of abandoned: > > the issue with MeshWorker is that when it was implemented, we didn't write

Re: [deal.II] Re: mpirun error when n_proc is not a factor of n_cells

Super great! What was the problem and how did you fix it? Best, Toby 06.03.2017 19:21 "Nkosilathi Vundla" napisał(a): > Hi Bruno > > That seems to have fixed the issue, glad I included the scoping. > > Thanks > Nkosi > > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 3:31:35 PM UTC+2, Bruno Turcksin wrote: >

[deal.II] Re: mpirun error when n_proc is not a factor of n_cells

Hi Bruno That seems to have fixed the issue, glad I included the scoping. Thanks Nkosi On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 3:31:35 PM UTC+2, Bruno Turcksin wrote: > > Nkosi, > > it is hard to tell what is going on without seeing the code but you > probably don't want to do the compress in the for loop.

Re: [deal.II] Re: mpirun error when n_proc is not a factor of n_cells

Hello Nkosi, I have the feeling that you are not compressing distributed vectors. You need to compress::VectorOperation::Add *on all processes* after changing the vector state or passing to a LAC. Can you figure out where in your code this is happening? Best, Toby 06.03.2017 14:31 "Bruno T

Re: [deal.II] MPI_InitFinalize causes runtime error when setting the build type to release

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:48:45 PM UTC-5, JxW wrote: > > Thanks a lot for the helpful advice. > > If I pass a custom max_num_threads to the constructor of mpi_init, then I > get > the following behavior: > > - Segmentation violation, when max_num_threads = 3, 4, > numbers::invalid_unsig

[deal.II] MeshWorker clarifications

Dear all, I am trying to port the previous linear elastic code to MeshWorker, but I have some questions about this class. First of all, I have read this question , and I read that Me

Re: [deal.II] Isoparametric testing

> Am I correct in this assumption? If so, is there a good way to test the > convergence rates and demonstrate sub-optimal convergence for linear > mappings? Yes, you are just checking convergence of a changing polygonal domain. I did the same mistake not too long ago. :-) One way to do this is to

[deal.II] Re: mpirun error when n_proc is not a factor of n_cells

Nkosi, it is hard to tell what is going on without seeing the code but you probably don't want to do the compress in the for loop. compress needs to be called by all the processors at the same time. This is not the case with the code you show if the processors don't own the same number of cells

[deal.II] Re: Lecture 31.65(Picard iteration)

Kyusik, On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 10:53:29 PM UTC-5, hanks0...@gmail.com wrote: > > I have a question in the lecture 31.65 that is about Picard iteration. > > In the lecture, the professor doesn't include system_matrix.reinit > (sparsity_pattern), system_rhs.reinit (dof_handler.n_dofs()), an

[deal.II] mpirun error when n_proc is not a factor of n_cells

Hi All I'm getting an error when I run my code. I get the following error when the number of cells is not a multiple of the number processors I run with (even if n_cells >> n_proc): An error occurred in line <216> of file <./unpack/deal.II-v8.4.1/source/lac/tr