Meeting minutes:
Present were: Tanja, Roland, Frank, Bruno, Ian, Peter
- GRHydro coordination GT and RIT will work at merging the MHD routines with the HD routines and test them both for regression and performance - remove unused/obsolete code in GRHydro (this has to be discussed on the mailing list) * reconstruction of the conservatives * general unused code found when merging MHD (will have to come up with a list) * merge polytype and general evolution into one set of routines (have to measure performance impact). Should we include con2prim_polytype in this? - vote on including PunctureTracker in the toolkit - no one has tried OpenMP with the testsuites yet - no one (but Ian) has tried the python simfactory - Carpet/Hg needs testing to see if it works as expected with the testsuites
Yours, Roland
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:40:54AM -0500, Roland Haas wrote:
- GRHydro coordination
- merge polytype and general evolution into one set of routines (have to
measure performance impact). Should we include con2prim_polytype in this?
I used to be a great advocate for this -- however, I have recently realized that it is crucial to be able to run in polytropic mode in order to compare polytropic and gamma-law results that in smooth test problems should yield identical results. Hence, I vote for keeping the special poly routines.
- Christian
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:45:50AM -0800, Christian D. Ott wrote:
I used to be a great advocate for this -- however, I have recently realized that it is crucial to be able to run in polytropic mode in order to compare polytropic and gamma-law results that in smooth test problems should yield identical results. Hence, I vote for keeping the special poly routines.
Do you need the special routines for this, or would be suffice to let the EOS handle to compute e.g. eps and press from rho alone, instead of really evolving eps?
Frank
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:53:45AM -0600, Frank Loeffler wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:45:50AM -0800, Christian D. Ott wrote:
I used to be a great advocate for this -- however, I have recently realized that it is crucial to be able to run in polytropic mode in order to compare polytropic and gamma-law results that in smooth test problems should yield identical results. Hence, I vote for keeping the special poly routines.
Do you need the special routines for this, or would be suffice to let the EOS handle to compute e.g. eps and press from rho alone, instead of really evolving eps?
in principle, we don't, that's right. However, the poly con2prim routine is used as a fallback when the general con2prim fails. So we would at least want to keep this one. (Also note that that there is a naming issue with the source code files for HLLE; I'll fix this today. Don't remove the _poly file.).
- Christian
users@lists.einsteintoolkit.org
-
Christian D. Ott -
Frank Loeffler -
Roland Haas