Due to the current gap in continued funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the NSF Unidata Program Center has temporarily paused most operations. See NSF Unidata Pause in Most Operations for details.
Due to the current gap in continued funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the NSF Unidata Program Center has temporarily paused most operations. See NSF Unidata Pause in Most Operations for details.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Thompson, Matt (GSFC-610.1)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] <matthew.thompson@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > A question: are you using the same version of NCO in both cases? A while > back (year or two) I encountered a performance issue that was due to NCO > and not netCDF (I tried many a combination). Charlie fixed whatever was > causing the slowdown a while back, so if you just built NCO it's probably > not that, but I wanted to make sure. > Matt, I've built and am using NCO 4.6.1 on our new cluster. The researchers who reported the problem aren't using NCO commands, they are using NetCDF from within their applications. I hadn't considered that NCO might be skewing my test case though. Is there another way to do whatever ncks is doing when it reads in a file and writes out a new one with no options specified on the command line? I can see that it's not just an nccopy because the resulting file is different. I guess this is where my ignorance of what these packages do starts to show. Our comparison case, the Cray, has NCO 4.1.0. -- Regards, -liam -There are uncountably more irrational fears than rational ones. -P. Dolan Liam Forbes loforbes@xxxxxxxxxx ph: 907-450-8618 fax: 907-450-8601 UAF Research Computing Systems Senior HPC Engineer LPIC1, CISSP
netcdfgroup archives: