Are you considering your degrees of freedom as vertex or cell-centered?
Say three "elements" per edge.
If vertex centered then discretization size is 1/3 if periodic and 1/2
if not periodic
If cell-centered then each cell has width 1/3 for both periodic and not
periodic
but in both cases you can think of the discretization size as constant
along the whole cube edge.
Is this related to DMSWARM in particular?
> On Nov 20, 2024, at 12:56 PM, MIGUEL MOLINOS PEREZ <mmoli...@us.es> wrote:
>
> I mean that if the dimensions of the cube are 1x1x1 (for example). And I want
> 10 elements per edge, the discretization size must be 0.1 constant over the
> whole cube edge.
>
> This is not in the code, I just impose the number of elements per edge.
>
> Thank you,
> Miguel
>
>> On 20 Nov 2024, at 18:52, Barry Smith <bsm...@petsc.dev> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by discretization size, and how do I see it in the code?
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2024, at 12:48 PM, MIGUEL MOLINOS PEREZ <mmoli...@us.es> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I meant that the discretisation size is not constant across the
>>> edges of the cube.
>>>
>>> Miguel
>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2024, at 18:36, Barry Smith <bsm...@petsc.dev> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry, I don't understand the problem. When I run by default with
>>>> -da_view I get
>>>>
>>>> Processor [0] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [1] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 3, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [2] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 2 3, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [3] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 3, Y range of indices: 2 3, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [4] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 2 3
>>>> Processor [5] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 3, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 2 3
>>>> Processor [6] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 2 3, Z range of indices: 2 3
>>>> Processor [7] M 3 N 3 P 3 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 3, Y range of indices: 2 3, Z range of indices: 2 3
>>>>
>>>> which seems right because you are trying to have three cells in each
>>>> direction. The distribution has to be uneven, hence 0 2 and 2 3
>>>>
>>>> When I change the code to use ndiv_mesh_* = 4 and run with periodic or not
>>>> I get
>>>>
>>>> $ PETSC_OPTIONS="" mpiexec -n 8 ./atoms-3D -dm_view
>>>> DM Object: 8 MPI processes
>>>> type: da
>>>> Processor [0] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [1] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 4, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [2] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 2 4, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [3] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 4, Y range of indices: 2 4, Z range of indices: 0 2
>>>> Processor [4] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 2 4
>>>> Processor [5] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 4, Y range of indices: 0 2, Z range of indices: 2 4
>>>> Processor [6] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 0 2, Y range of indices: 2 4, Z range of indices: 2 4
>>>> Processor [7] M 4 N 4 P 4 m 2 n 2 p 2 w 1 s 1
>>>> X range of indices: 2 4, Y range of indices: 2 4, Z range of indices: 2 4
>>>>
>>>> so it is splitting as expected each rank gets a 2 by 2 by 2 set of indices.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please let me know what the problem is that I should be seeing.
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2024, at 7:06 AM, MIGUEL MOLINOS PEREZ <mmoli...@us.es> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Barry,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, find attached to this email a minimal example of the problem. Run
>>>>> it using 8 MPI processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Miguel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Nov 2024, at 11:48, Miguel Molinos <mmoli...@us.es> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bary:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will check the example you suggest. Anyhow, I’ll send a reproducible
>>>>>> example ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Miguel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 Nov 2024, at 18:55, Barry Smith <bsm...@petsc.dev> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I modify src/dm/tests/ex25.c and always see a nice even split when
>>>>>>> possible with both DM_BOUNDARY_NONE and DM_BOUNDARY_PERIODIC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please send a reproducible example?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2024, at 6:14 AM, MIGUEL MOLINOS PEREZ <mmoli...@us.es>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that if I mesh a cubic domain with “DMDACreate3d” using 8
>>>>>>>> bricks for discretization and with periodic boundaries, each of the
>>>>>>>> bricks has a different size. In contrast, if I use DM_BOUNDARY_NONE,
>>>>>>>> all 8 bricks have the same size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have used this together with the DMSWarm discretization. And as you
>>>>>>>> can see the number of particles per rank is not evenly distributed:
>>>>>>>> 210 420 366 732 420 840 732 1464
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Miguel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Screenshot 2024-11-19 at 10.56.36.png>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <atoms-3D.cpp><Mg-hcp-cube-x17-x10-x10.dump>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
