[Paraview] capability of ParaView, Catalyst in distributed computing environment ...

[Andy Bauer]

It may be possible to do this with Catalyst. I would guess that nearly all
of the complex work would need to be done in the adaptor to integrate this
properly though.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, <u.utku.turuncoglu at be.itu.edu.tr> wrote:

> Yes, you are right. In this case, there will be two separate
> MPI_COMM_WORLD. Plus, one that covers all the resources (let's say that
> global MPI_COMM_WORLD). Actually, this kind of setup is very common for
> multi-physics applications such as fluid-structure interaction. So, is it
> possible to tight this kind of environment with Catalyst? I am not expert
> about Catalyst but it seems that there might be a problem in the rendering
> stage even underlying grids and fields are defined without any problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> --ufuk
>
> > I'm not sure if this is exactly what the original user is referring to,
> > but it is possible to have two separate codes communicate using MPI
> > through the dynamic processes in MPI-2. Essentially, one program starts
> up
> > on N processors and begins running and gets an MPI_COMM_WORLD. It then
> > spawns another executable on M different processors and that new
> > executable will call MPI_INIT and also get its own MPI_COMM_WORLD. So you
> > have two, disjoint MPI_COMM_WORLD's that get linked together through a
> > newly created intercommunicator.
> >
> >
> > I've used this to couple a structural mechanics code to our fluid
> dynamics
> > solver for example. It sounds like that is similar to what is being done
> > here.
> >
> >
> > How that would interact with coprocessing is beyond my knowledge though.
> > It does sound like an interesting problem and one I would be very curious
> > to find out the details.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ParaView <paraview-bounces at paraview.org> on behalf of Andy Bauer
> > <andy.bauer at kitware.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:52 AM
> > To: Ufuk Utku Turuncoglu (BE)
> > Cc: paraview at paraview.org
> > Subject: Re: [Paraview] capability of ParaView, Catalyst in distributed
> > computing environment ...
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a bit confused. MPI_COMM_WORLD is the global communicator and as far
> > as I'm aware, can't be modified which means there can't be two different
> > communicators.
> >
> > Catalyst can be set to use a specific MPI communicator and that's been
> > done by at least one code (Code_Saturne). I think they have a
> multiphysics
> > simulation as well.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Ufuk Utku Turuncoglu (BE)
> > <u.utku.turuncoglu at be.itu.edu.tr<mailto:u.utku.turuncoglu at be.itu.edu.tr
> >>
> > wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I just wonder about the capability of ParaView, Catalyst in distributed
> > computing environment. I have little bit experience in in-situ
> > visualization but it is hard for me to see the big picture at this point.
> > So, i decided to ask to the user list to get some suggestion from the
> > experts. Hypothetically, lets assume that we have two simulation code
> that
> > are coupled together (i.e. fluid-structure interaction) and both of them
> > have their own MPI_COMM_WORLD and run on different processors (model1
> runs
> > on MPI rank 0,1,2,3 and model2 runs on 4,5,6,7). What is the correct
> > design to create integrated in-situ visualization analysis (both model
> > contributes to same visualization pipeline) in this case? Do you know any
> > implementation that is similar to this design? At least, is it possible?
> >
> > In this case, the adaptor code will need to access to two different
> > MPI_COMM_WORLD and it could run on all processor (from 0 to 7) or its own
> > MPI_COMM_WORLD (i.e. MPI ranks 8,9,10,11). Also, the both simulation code
> > have its own grid and field definitions (might be handled via defining
> > different input ports). Does it create a problem in Paraview, Catalyst
> > side, if the multiblock dataset is used to define the grids of the
> > components in adaptor. I am asking because some MPI processes (belongs to
> > adaptor code) will not have data for specific model component due to the
> > domain decomposition implementation of the individual models. For
> example,
> > MPI rank 4,5,6,7 will not have data for model1 (that runs on MPI rank
> > 0,1,2,3) and 0,1,2,3 will not have data for model2 (that runs on MPI rank
> > 4,5,6,7). To that end, do i need to collect all the data from the
> > components? If this is the case, how can i handle 2d decomposition
> > problem? Because, the adaptor code has no any common grid structure that
> > fits for all the model components.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ufuk Turuncoglu
> > _______________________________________________
> > Powered by www.kitware.com<http://www.kitware.com>
> >
> > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> >
> > Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at:
> > http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
> >
> > Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView
> >
> > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/paraview/attachments/20160520/a6fb8a67/attachment.html>