<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Pardiso vs. MATLAB backslash comparison and fast forward backward substitution advice in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826394#M5140</link>
    <description>Dear all,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have a 143748 X 143748 sparse matrix that I would like to solve with Pardiso. I could compile the example on pardiso usage and get the result. I used the default settings for iparm except that the array indices are 0 based since I am calling pardiso from C++. However there is a question from my side, when I did a timing comparison with MATLAB backslash which uses UMFPACK for unsymmetric matrices and sparse cholesky for symmetric ones. On this system MATLAB backslash beats pardiso by a factor of 2-3. I write 2-3 because MATLAB timings with tic toc are not that realiable however that should still give me an idea. Here is the log file that I got from a pardiso solve:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Reordering completed ... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of nonzeros in factors = 30513182&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of factorization MFLOPS = 7193 &lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time in Analysis 4.24&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Factorization completed ... &lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time in Numerical Factorization 2.74&lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time in solution 0.46&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I used boost::timer class for timings, are there any functions to time in MKL by the way?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;And the same opertion by use of Factorize package on MATLAB central file exchange which is created by Tim Davies, the father of UMFPACK.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;factorization Elapsed time is 4.386812 seconds.&lt;BR /&gt;solution Elapsed time is 1.125806 seconds.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Direct backslash in MATLAB gives&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time is 3.407212 seconds.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Is there a way to improve these timings for Pardiso side, my matrix is a symmetric indefinite one. One more remark is that it is important for me to do a forward-backward substitution quickly because I am trying to use the factorized form of a stiffness matrix that is available from a previous solution as a preconditioner for cg iterations(which gives fast convergence in matlab however the bottleneck seems like the forward-backward solutions for the preconditioner usage.)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Last point is that I used gnu c++ compiler with -O3 flag, do you think intel c++ compiler can opmitize the process better?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Could you comment on the above points?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Best regards&lt;BR /&gt;Umut&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 11:35:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>utab</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-05-10T11:35:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Pardiso vs. MATLAB backslash comparison and fast forward backward substitution advice</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826394#M5140</link>
      <description>Dear all,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have a 143748 X 143748 sparse matrix that I would like to solve with Pardiso. I could compile the example on pardiso usage and get the result. I used the default settings for iparm except that the array indices are 0 based since I am calling pardiso from C++. However there is a question from my side, when I did a timing comparison with MATLAB backslash which uses UMFPACK for unsymmetric matrices and sparse cholesky for symmetric ones. On this system MATLAB backslash beats pardiso by a factor of 2-3. I write 2-3 because MATLAB timings with tic toc are not that realiable however that should still give me an idea. Here is the log file that I got from a pardiso solve:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Reordering completed ... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of nonzeros in factors = 30513182&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of factorization MFLOPS = 7193 &lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time in Analysis 4.24&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Factorization completed ... &lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time in Numerical Factorization 2.74&lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time in solution 0.46&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I used boost::timer class for timings, are there any functions to time in MKL by the way?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;And the same opertion by use of Factorize package on MATLAB central file exchange which is created by Tim Davies, the father of UMFPACK.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;factorization Elapsed time is 4.386812 seconds.&lt;BR /&gt;solution Elapsed time is 1.125806 seconds.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Direct backslash in MATLAB gives&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Elapsed time is 3.407212 seconds.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Is there a way to improve these timings for Pardiso side, my matrix is a symmetric indefinite one. One more remark is that it is important for me to do a forward-backward substitution quickly because I am trying to use the factorized form of a stiffness matrix that is available from a previous solution as a preconditioner for cg iterations(which gives fast convergence in matlab however the bottleneck seems like the forward-backward solutions for the preconditioner usage.)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Last point is that I used gnu c++ compiler with -O3 flag, do you think intel c++ compiler can opmitize the process better?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Could you comment on the above points?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Best regards&lt;BR /&gt;Umut&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 11:35:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826394#M5140</guid>
      <dc:creator>utab</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-10T11:35:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pardiso vs. MATLAB backslash comparison and fast forward backwa</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826395#M5141</link>
      <description>Hi Umut,&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;The strange thing is that Analysis phase took more than Factorization and Solve phases in PARDISO. Usually factorization is a dominant part.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt; &lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Could you please set msglvl=1 and post here what PARDISO reported?&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;To measure time in MKL you may use dsecnd() function, search here:&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;A href="http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/hpc/mkl/mklman/index.htm"&gt;http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/hpc/mkl/mklman/index.htm&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;But please note that the very first call to dsecnd takes about 0.5 sec itself.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Regards,&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Konstantin&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 05:12:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826395#M5141</guid>
      <dc:creator>Konstantin_A_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-11T05:12:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pardiso vs. MATLAB backslash comparison and fast forward backwa</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826396#M5142</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;DIV id="_mcePaste"&gt;Umit,&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV id="_mcePaste"&gt;actually, the problem with dsecnd() function has been resolved in the latest 10.3.Update 3 which is already available. But the behaviour you are experiencing is an unexpected for Pardiso.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV id="_mcePaste"&gt;--Gennady&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 07:04:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826396#M5142</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gennady_F_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-11T07:04:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pardiso vs. MATLAB backslash comparison and fast forward backwa</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826397#M5143</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Konstantin, here are the output, a little, long, with msglvl = 1, mtype = 1 and iparm[1] = 0 used phase=13 on all:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;=== PARDISO is running in In-Core mode, because iparam(60)=0 ===&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Percentage of computed non-zeros for LL^T factorization&lt;BR /&gt;0 % 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % 7 % 8 % 9 % 10 % 11 % 12 % 13 % 14 % 15 % 16 % 17 % 18 % 19 % 20 % 21 % 22 % 23 % 24 % 25 % 26 % 27 % 28 % 29 % 30 % 31 % 32 % 33 % 34 % 35 % 36 % 37 % 38 % 39 % 40 % 41 % 42 % 43 % 44 % 45 % 46 % 47 % 48 % 49 % 50 % 51 % 52 % 53 % 54 % 55 % 56 % 57 % 58 % 59 % 60 % 61 % 62 % 63 % 64 % 65 % 66 % 67 % 68 % 69 % 70 % 71 % 73 % 74 % 75 % 76 % 77 % 78 % 79 % 80 % 81 % 82 % 83 % 84 % 85 % 86 % 87 % 88 % 89 % 90 % 91 % 92 % 93 % 94 % 95 % 96 % 97 % 98 % 99 % 100 % &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;================ PARDISO: solving a real struct. sym. system ================&lt;BR /&gt;The local (internal) PARDISO version is : 103000115&lt;BR /&gt;0-based array is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;PARDISO double precision computation is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Minimum degree algorithm at reorder step is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Single-level factorization algorithm is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Scaling is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Summary PARDISO: ( reorder to solve )&lt;BR /&gt;================&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Times:&lt;BR /&gt;======&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in calculations of symmetric matrix portrait(fulladj): 0.029071 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in reordering of the initial matrix(reorder) : 0.814425 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in symbolic factorization(symbfct) : 0.375613 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in data preparations for factorization(parlist) : 0.017267 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in copying matrix to internal data structure(A to LU): 0.000002 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in factorization step(numfct) : 3.503580 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in direct solver at solve step (solve) : 0.227055 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in allocation of internal data structures(malloc) : 0.549828 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in additional calculations : 0.448929 s&lt;BR /&gt;Total time spent : 5.965770 s&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Statistics:&lt;BR /&gt;===========&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Parallel Direct Factorization with #processors: &amp;gt; 2&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Numerical Factorization with BLAS3 and O(n) synchronization &amp;gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Linear system Ax = b&amp;gt; &lt;BR /&gt; #equations: 143748&lt;BR /&gt; #non-zeros in A: 2934084&lt;BR /&gt; non-zeros in A (%): 0.014199&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; #right-hand sides: 1&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Factors L and U &amp;gt; &lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Preprocessing with multiple minimum degree, tree height &amp;gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Reduction for efficient parallel factorization &amp;gt;&lt;BR /&gt; #columns for each panel: 96&lt;BR /&gt; #independent subgraphs: 0&lt;BR /&gt; #supernodes: 55576&lt;BR /&gt; size of largest supernode: 1161&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in L 23266462&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in U 20072706&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in L+U 43339168&lt;BR /&gt; gflop for the numerical factorization: 18.084707&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; gflop/s for the numerical factorization: 5.161779&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Reordering completed ... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of nonzeros in factors = 43339168&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of factorization MFLOPS = 18084&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;WITH iparm[1]=2&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;=== PARDISO is running in In-Core mode, because iparam(60)=0 ===&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Percentage of computed non-zeros for LL^T factorization&lt;BR /&gt;0 % 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % 7 % 8 % 9 % 10 % 11 % 12 % 13 % 14 % 15 % 16 % 17 % 18 % 19 % 20 % 21 % 22 % 23 % 24 % 25 % 26 % 27 % 28 % 29 % 30 % 31 % 32 % 33 % 34 % 35 % 36 % 37 % 38 % 39 % 40 % 41 % 42 % 43 % 44 % 45 % 46 % 47 % 48 % 49 % 50 % 51 % 52 % 53 % 54 % 55 % 56 % 57 % 58 % 59 % 60 % 61 % 62 % 63 % 64 % 65 % 66 % 67 % 68 % 69 % 70 % 71 % 72 % 73 % 74 % 75 % 76 % 77 % 78 % 79 % 80 % 81 % 82 % 83 % 84 % 85 % 86 % 88 % 89 % 90 % 91 % 92 % 93 % 94 % 95 % 96 % 97 % 98 % 99 % 100 % &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;================ PARDISO: solving a real struct. sym. system ================&lt;BR /&gt;The local (internal) PARDISO version is : 103000115&lt;BR /&gt;0-based array is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;PARDISO double precision computation is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;METIS algorithm at reorder step is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Single-level factorization algorithm is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Scaling is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Summary PARDISO: ( reorder to solve )&lt;BR /&gt;================&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Times:&lt;BR /&gt;======&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in calculations of symmetric matrix portrait(fulladj): 0.022432 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in reordering of the initial matrix(reorder) : 2.481204 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in symbolic factorization(symbfct) : 0.231827 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in data preparations for factorization(parlist) : 0.016098 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in copying matrix to internal data structure(A to LU): 0.000001 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in factorization step(numfct) : 1.920346 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in direct solver at solve step (solve) : 0.161954 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in allocation of internal data structures(malloc) : 0.422124 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in additional calculations : 0.423500 s&lt;BR /&gt;Total time spent : 5.679486 s&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Statistics:&lt;BR /&gt;===========&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Parallel Direct Factorization with #processors: &amp;gt; 2&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Numerical Factorization with BLAS3 and O(n) synchronization &amp;gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Linear system Ax = b&amp;gt; &lt;BR /&gt; #equations: 143748&lt;BR /&gt; #non-zeros in A: 2934084&lt;BR /&gt; non-zeros in A (%): 0.014199&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; #right-hand sides: 1&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Factors L and U &amp;gt; &lt;BR /&gt; #columns for each panel: 96&lt;BR /&gt; #independent subgraphs: 0&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Preprocessing with state of the art partitioning metis&amp;gt;&lt;BR /&gt; #supernodes: 55598&lt;BR /&gt; size of largest supernode: 873&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in L 16718537&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in U 13794645&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in L+U 30513182&lt;BR /&gt; gflop for the numerical factorization: 7.193245&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; gflop/s for the numerical factorization: 3.745807&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Reordering completed ... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of nonzeros in factors = 30513182&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of factorization MFLOPS = 7193&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;WITH iparm[1] = 3;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;=== PARDISO is running in In-Core mode, because iparam(60)=0 ===&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Percentage of computed non-zeros for LL^T factorization&lt;BR /&gt;0 % 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % 7 % 8 % 9 % 10 % 11 % 12 % 13 % 14 % 15 % 16 % 17 % 18 % 19 % 20 % 21 % 22 % 23 % 24 % 25 % 26 % 27 % 28 % 29 % 30 % 31 % 32 % 33 % 34 % 35 % 36 % 37 % 38 % 39 % 40 % 41 % 42 % 43 % 44 % 45 % 46 % 47 % 48 % 49 % 50 % 51 % 52 % 53 % 54 % 55 % 56 % 57 % 58 % 59 % 60 % 61 % 62 % 63 % 64 % 65 % 66 % 67 % 68 % 69 % 70 % 71 % 72 % 73 % 74 % 75 % 76 % 77 % 78 % 79 % 80 % 81 % 82 % 83 % 84 % 85 % 86 % 87 % 88 % 89 % 90 % 91 % 92 % 93 % 94 % 95 % 96 % 97 % 98 % 99 % 100 % &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;================ PARDISO: solving a real struct. sym. system ================&lt;BR /&gt;The local (internal) PARDISO version is : 103000115&lt;BR /&gt;0-based array is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;PARDISO double precision computation is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Parallel METIS algorithm at reorder step is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Single-level factorization algorithm is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;Scaling is turned ON&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Summary PARDISO: ( reorder to solve )&lt;BR /&gt;================&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Times:&lt;BR /&gt;======&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in calculations of symmetric matrix portrait(fulladj): 0.022449 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in reordering of the initial matrix(reorder) : 1.902797 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in symbolic factorization(symbfct) : 0.284451 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in data preparations for factorization(parlist) : 0.017533 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in copying matrix to internal data structure(A to LU): 0.000001 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in factorization step(numfct) : 1.905108 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in direct solver at solve step (solve) : 0.155456 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in allocation of internal data structures(malloc) : 0.422736 s&lt;BR /&gt;Time spent in additional calculations : 0.415412 s&lt;BR /&gt;Total time spent : 5.125943 s&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Statistics:&lt;BR /&gt;===========&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Parallel Direct Factorization with #processors: &amp;gt; 2&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Numerical Factorization with BLAS3 and O(n) synchronization &amp;gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Linear system Ax = b&amp;gt; &lt;BR /&gt; #equations: 143748&lt;BR /&gt; #non-zeros in A: 2934084&lt;BR /&gt; non-zeros in A (%): 0.014199&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; #right-hand sides: 1&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt; Factors L and U &amp;gt; &lt;BR /&gt; #columns for each panel: 96&lt;BR /&gt; #independent subgraphs: 0&lt;BR /&gt; #supernodes: 55599&lt;BR /&gt; size of largest supernode: 729&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in L 16698663&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in U 13786763&lt;BR /&gt; number of nonzeros in L+U 30485426&lt;BR /&gt; gflop for the numerical factorization: 7.221651&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; gflop/s for the numerical factorization: 3.790678&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Reordering completed ... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of nonzeros in factors = 30485426&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Number of factorization MFLOPS = 7221&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 09:57:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Pardiso-vs-MATLAB-backslash-comparison-and-fast-forward-backward/m-p/826397#M5143</guid>
      <dc:creator>utab</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-12T09:57:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

