From: Derek G. <fri...@gm...> - 2009-04-01 19:30:48
|
Nope... it's still hanging out there though. It is definitely a problem we need to solve... we just haven't made it around to it yet. Derek On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:51 AM, David Knezevic wrote: > Regarding Ben's system.add_variable(foo,SCALAR); idea: I actually > need the exact same functionality to implement a pure-Neumann > problem, with a constraint \int_\Omega u \dx = 0 that is imposed via > a scalar Lagrange multiplier. > > Derek, has anyone in your group had a chance to look at implementing > this yet? If not, I'll try to follow up on it. > > - Dave > > > Roy Stogner wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Derek Gaston wrote: >>> One question... will one processor end up doing a lot more work in >>> parallel? >> Each row has to go somewhere. We could "round robin" the processor >> assignments if more than one SCALAR variable is attached, but there's >> no way to get around *some* imbalance other than by handing fewer >> elements to those processors that also have SCALAR rows. >> I wouldn't worry about it too much, though - in fact, we could >> probably assign SCALAR dofs in reverse order (to processor N if >> there's one of them, N and N-1 if there's two, etc.) and cancel out >> some of our existing imbalance. Right now lower numbered processors >> are a little over burdened with dofs on partition boundaries. >> --- >> Roy >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Libmesh-users mailing list >> Lib...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users > |