skip to main content
article

Experiences of sparse direct symmetric solvers

Published:01 August 2007Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We recently carried out an extensive comparison of the performance of state-of-the-art sparse direct solvers for the numerical solution of symmetric linear systems of equations. Some of these solvers were written primarily as research codes while others have been developed for commercial use. Our experiences of using the different packages to solve a wide range of problems arising from real applications were mixed. In this paper, we highlight some of these experiences with the aim of providing advice to both software developers and users of sparse direct solvers. We discuss key features that a direct solver should offer and conclude that while performance is an essential factor to consider when choosing a code, there are other features that a user should also consider looking for that vary significantly between packages.

References

  1. Amestoy, P., Duff, I., L'Excellent, J., and Koster, J. 2001. A fully asynchronmous multifrontal solver using distributed dynamic scheduling. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Applic. 23, 15--41. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashcraft, C. and Grimes, R. 1999. SPOOLES: An object-oriented sparse matrix library. In Proceedings of the 9th SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing. Software available at http://www.netlib.org/linalg/spooles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, C., Grimes, R., and Lewis, J. 1998. Accurate symmetric indefinite linear equation solvers. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Applic. 20, 513--561. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, T. 2003. Algorithm 832: UMFPACK, an unsymmetric-pattern multifrontal method. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 30, 2, 196--199. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, T., Hager, W., and Rajamanickam, S. 2006. Algorithm: CHOLMOD, a sparse cholesky factirization and modification package. In preparation. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobrian, F., Kumfert, G., and Pothen, A. 2000. The design of sparse direct solvers using object-oriented techniques. In Advances in Software Tools in Scientific Computing, H. Langtangen, A. Bruaset, and E. Quak, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, vol. 50. Springer-Verlag, 89--131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolan, E. and Moré, J. 2002. Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles. Math. Program. 91, 2, 201--213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dongarra, J., Duff, I., Sorensen, D., and van der Vorst, H. 1998. Numerical Linear Algebra for High-Performance Computers. SIAM. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Duff, I. 2004. MA57---a new code for the solution of sparse symmetric definite and indefinite systems. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 30, 118--154. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Duff, I., Erisman, A., and Reid, J. 1986. Direct Methods for Sparse Matrices. Oxford University Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Duff, I. and Reid, J. 1983. The multifrontal solution of indefinite sparse symmetric linear systems. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 9, 302--325. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Duff, I. and Reid, J. 1996. Exploiting zeros on the diagonal in the direct solution of indefinite sparse symmetric systems. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 22, 227--257. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Duff, I. and Scott, J. 1999. A frontal code for the solution of sparse positive-definite symmetric systems arising from finite-element applications. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 25, 404--424. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert, J., Ng, E., and Peyton, B. 1994. An efficient algorithm to compute row and column counts for sparse Cholesky factorization. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 15, 1075--1091. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Gould, N., Hu, Y., and Scott, J. 2005. Complete results for a numerical evaluation of sparse direct solvers for the solution of large, sparse, symmetric linear systems of equations. Numerical Analysis Internal Report 2005-1, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. Available from www.numerical.rl.ac.uk/reports/reports.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gould, N., Hu, Y., and Scott, J. 2007. A numerical evaluation of sparse solvers for symmetric systems. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 33, 2, Article 10. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould, N. and Scott, J. 2003. Complete results for a numerical evaluation of HSL packages for the direct solution of large sparse, symmetric linear systems of equations. Numerical Analysis Internal Report 2003-2, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. Available from www.numerical.rl.ac.uk/reports/reports.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gould, N. and Scott, J. 2004. A numerical evaluation of HSL packages for the direct solution of large sparse, symmetric linear systems of equations. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 30, 300--325. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gupta, A. 2000. WSMP Watson sparse matrix package (Part II: direct solution of general sparse systems. Tech. rep. RC 21888 (98472), IBM T.J. Watson Reserach Center. www.cs.umn.edu/~agupta/wsmp.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. HSL. 2004. A collection of Fortran codes for large-scale scientific computation. See http://www.cse.clrc.ac.uk/nag/hsl/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Rotkin, V. and Toledo, S. 2004. The design and implementation of a new out-of-core sparse Cholesky factorization method. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 30, 19--46. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Schenk, O. and Gärtner, K. 2004. Solving unsymmetric sparse systems of linear equations with PARDISO. J. Fut. Gener. Comput. Syst. 20, 3, 475--487. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Whaley, R., Petitet, A., and Dongarra, J. 2001. Automated empirical optimization of software and the ATLAS project. Parall. Comput. 27, 1--2, 3--35. Also available as University of Tennessee LAPACK Working Note #147, UT-CS-00-448, 2000 (www.netlib.org/lapack/lawns/lawn147.ps).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Experiences of sparse direct symmetric solvers

          Recommendations

          Reviews

          Kai Diethelm

          In a recent paper [1], the authors (together with Gould) carried out extensive numerical experiments with a large number of algorithms, for the direct solution of sparse symmetric linear systems. The results of the experiments, in terms of the performance of the tested algorithms, are reported in that paper. "Experiences of sparse direct symmetric solvers" is a very useful byproduct of those investigations. Specifically, the authors describe the experience that was gained from running the tests; the quality of the documentations is of course an important aspect. Other issues of interest are the details of the license, and the difficulties with obtaining the code and possible updates. When it comes to actually using the software, it is necessary to look at the interfaces and calling sequences of the subroutines: Are they user friendly__?__ Do they provide an opportunity to exercise some influence over the parameters of the algorithm, if the user wants to do so__?__ Will the code provide useful default values for the parameters, if the user does not have any information on how to set the parameters__?__ How does the code handle errors and exceptions__?__ The discussion of these aspects gives the user helpful hints when it comes to the selection of a particular algorithm, and also gives the software developer some guidelines to follow when preparing the code for publication. Online Computing Reviews Service

          Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

          Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader