TGV performance

[Stefan K.]

I am wondering if someone can comment on the TGV results (case2) in Loppi et al. Computer Physics Communications 233 (2018). It looks like the wall-clock time is quite high compared to incompressible flow solvers. Is this because of the method to handle low Mach number flows with a compressible code?

[Loppi, Niki A]

It is difficult to answer as you are not giving any details. What are you comparing against (resolution, hardware, wall-time, discretisation, time-integration etc…)? 

I think our 3h38min wall-time is fine. For example here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.01439.pdf similar setup with an incompressible solver took 4h.

Here are few things to consider:

- The number of elements is 52^3 but the number of solution points is 260^3 (P=4 polynomials) 

- Since the geometry is just a box, purely spectral / high-order finite difference schemes have an advantage.

- You could strong scale. Double the number of GPUs and cut the wall-time in half.

- We have made the solver faster since by adding other convergence acceleration techniques. Latest release should be ~2-3x faster.

Niki

On 8 Aug 2019, at 22:09, Stefan K. <stg...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am wondering if someone can comment on the TGV results (case2) in Loppi et al. Computer Physics Communications 233 (2018). It looks like the wall-clock time is quite high compared to incompressible flow solvers. Is this because of the method to handle low Mach number flows with a compressible code?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PyFR Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pyfrmailingli...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pyfrmailinglist/6ca2606e-1f31-4e8a-bc2f-a6bc6432d03f%40googlegroups.com.