- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Hi, I'm having a few issues getting consistent results when using PARDISO in parallel. I'm using MKL version 10.3 update 11 (32 bit).

I'm solving a symmetric indefinite system, so using mtype=-2. In general I've been using the default solver options via iparm(1)=0.

Using these options, I'm getting a different solution, not only from run to run, but also on repeat solutions of the same factorization/RHS vector. The solutions seem to differ up to the first or second decimal place.. sometimes worse!

I've found that if I change the fill-in reducing ordering with iparm(2)=0, then I get more consistent results, but the solution still differs at the 10th decimal place or so. This isn't ideal for me.

Further, if I set OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 (ie only using 1 processor), then I get completely consistent results every run. For any other number of threads, I get problems.

My compile flags (for ifort) are:-O3 -xSSE4.1 -openmp -ipo -parallel -free

I've tried adding the compiler options: -fp-model precise -fp-model source, but they haven't made any noticable difference.

I'm stumped - anyone have any suggestions? I've attached the matrix in sparse symmetric storage as well as the RHS vector.

Cheers for any help!

EDIT: Have been searching a lot more after posting this and found that ill conditioning of the matrix and openmp reduction operations are to blame, and that the only way to expect bit for bit agreement is using sequential mode.

However, these variations are still quite large for the example I gave. Would also be interested in why the METIS nested dissection gives such a different result to the minimum degree algorithm, which seems less sensitive to the problem. Would also be happy if someone points out a stupid error I've made!

However, these variations are still quite large for the example I gave. Would also be interested in why the METIS nested dissection gives such a different result to the minimum degree algorithm, which seems less sensitive to the problem. Would also be happy if someone points out a stupid error I've made!

Link Copied

5 Replies

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Besides ill conditioning of matrices and multithreading, another factor contributing to inconsistent results on the same system is memory alignment. It's strongly suggested you always align memory allocation to certain boundary (e.g. 64-byte). Please refer to an earlier related Knowledge Base article: http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/getting-reproducible-results-with-intel-mkl/

Thanks,

Zhang

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Cheers

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

I would suggest you to set a number of iterative refinement steps to anon-zero value.. say 3 or 4:

iparm(8)=3

With this settings I've got 1e-13 relative residual that should be more than enough.

Regards,

Konstantin

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Konstantin also clarified with me that because PARDISO does not support full pivoting,the precision of the factorization step depends on fill-in reordering. This is why PARDISO also includes an iterative refinement step (iparm(8)) to help with precision.

Please let us know if you have further questions.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Thanks again for the help. If you have any other suggestions to get things to be more consistent then please let me know.

Cheers

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page