NOTE: The netcdf-hdf mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
"Robert E. McGrath" <mcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Possibly of interest: > > We have just posted a short study investigating parallel netCDF. > > Muqun Yang, Mike Folk, Robert E. McGrath, "Investigation of Parallel > NetCDF > with ROMS", > http://hdf.ncsa.uiuc.edu/apps/WRF-ROMS/parallel-netcdf.pdf > > This work was done as part of the NSF-funded MEAD project: > http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/AboutUs/FocusAreas/MEADExpedition.html Thanks, this was interesting. I think you want to change the table heading in Table 1 from "NCAR IBM P690" to "NCSA IBM P690". I wonder if the results that show less wall clock time for 6 time steps than for 4 time steps and similarly for 10 time steps less than for 8 time steps with pnetCDF on the NCSA P690 might be an indication of a discretization error in the timing. Or maybe something else was consuming enough of the machine that the results are unreliable. I'm also curious why the pnetCDF appears to be so much slower than serial netCDF for small writes. Do you know what the nature of the MPI-IO overhead is that could explain what appears to be a 10:1 slowdown for using pnetCDF with 4 time steps on the NCSA P690? I could understand maybe a 2:1 slowdown, but 10:1 seems surprisingly large ... --Russ
netcdf-hdf archives: