|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
Additional Classification:
Keywords:
REVIEW
"Kai Diethelm : Reviewer"
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 per
more...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||