fenics team mailing list archive

[Johan Jansson <jjan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 12:07:23AM +0100, Johan Jansson wrote:
>   
> > Hi!
> >
> > The upcoming FEniCS conference is a good opportunity for a directed
> > push in the development in FEniCS. There has been activity in
> > parallel computing in FEniCS over the last two years, but the
> > critical mass to make parallel performance an integral part of
> > FEniCS has not yet been attained.
> >
> > I would like to float the idea of making parallel performance the
> > target for the conference. A realistic goal could be strong
> > near-linear scaling up to ~100 CPUs for a non-trivial PDE (e.g.
> > Navier-Stokes).
> >
> > Currently there are two branches of parallel development: 1. a
> > branch based on DOLFIN 0.8.0 (the work of Niclas Jansson at CTL/KTH)
> > and 2. the trunk of DOLFIN (joint effort by DOLFIN developers to
> > integrate Niclas' branch with other parallel work and DOLFIN
> > updates). The performance results are already there in 1, and
> > progress has already been made in the integration in 2 (helped
> > nicely by Anders Logg hosting a week of code in Smögen this fall).
> >
> > Parallel computing is one of the key research areas of the CTL group
> > at KTH, and we intend to put significant effort into reaching the
> > target, given that this strategy is adopted. I think by making
> > parallel performance top priority in the project, it would also be a
> > realistic target, and open up the project to new applications, more
> > exposure, etc.
> >
> > Best,
> >  Johan
> >     
>
> Sounds good. It is also in line with what has been discussed earlier
> that the focus from here on to the release of DOLFIN 1.0 (which will
> hopefully happen in June) should be on performance and bug fixes (not
> new features).
>
> But I'm surprised that the 0.8 branch is still in active use. Are you
> actually still using it??? And why?
>
> Anyway, a top priority now should be to look at our current set of
> benchmarks for DOLFIN and make sure they are interesting and cover
> everything we want to test (probably not) and add the missing pieces.
> We have recently bought a new server that will function as a dedicated
> benchbot for FEniCS and report nightly results. That can be used to
> track regressions and monitor the progress of the effort to improve
> performance.
>
> --
> Anders
>   
Ok, good! A set of benchmarks (including the scaling of Navier-Stokes I 
mentioned) would be a way of focusing the development. I agree that a 
feature freeze would be a good idea to prepare for a release, and this 
methodology is also the way I/we typically manage new code development: 
e.g. freeze a version/snapshot of the project that has been verified 
while developing a specific area (or as mentioned, trying to match 
benchmarks).

As you say, a first step would then be to collect a list of benchmarks 
representing what we think FEniCS should be able to do, given the 
features that are already there. The conference can then serve as a 
deadline for satisfying these benchmarks, and as a workshop where we can 
determine if some benchmarks have not been satisfied, and where we can 
do work to sort out the remaining issues.

Best,
 Johan