HPCG 3.0- Assertion nxf%2==0 failed. about hpcg

[LWisteria]

I'm not a HPCG main developer but I know the local size should be divisible by 8 because HPCG uses 4-level multigrid preconditioner.
How about 432x432x432 or 424x424x424 instead of 430x430x430?

[luszczek]

HPCG uses multigrid preconditioner with three levels. Each level requires division by 2. So your original problem size has to be divisible by 8 (=222).
Performance observed with HPCG is not meant to track HPL. In fact, HPCG achieves a fraction of HPL achieves. Please see HPCG web site and look at the results pages that show what that fraction is for machines around the world.

[puneet336]

Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply
With hpcg.dat as:-
424 424 424
1200

the simulation completed within 115m7.580s. I got the following data:-

GFLOP/s Summary:
  Raw DDOT: 9.54469
  Raw WAXPBY: 4.74248
  Raw SpMV: 6.57449
  Raw MG: 0.665184
  Raw Total: 0.792704
  Total with convergence overhead: 0.792704
  Total with convergence and optimization phase overhead: 0.773687
...................
__________ Final Summary __________:
  HPCG result is VALID with a GFLOP/s rating of: 0.773687
      HPCG 2.4 Rating (for historical value) is: 0.792703

Though with HPL i get approx 7.62620e+02 Gflops (for N=83328 NB=192 P=1 Q=1 505.81 )
HPCG number(0.773Gflops) are way too off from what i usually get via HPL (~780Gflops)

Or am i wrong on my observations here?