[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[McIDAS #ABG-678484]: netCDF and McIDAS



Hi Brice,

Some general comments:

It is hard for me to comment in any detail without being able to see
and compare the netCDF files created on your 32-bit and 64-bit
systems.  Off of the top of my head, I would say that there can
be differences in files created on the two systems, but I really
need to talk to the netCDF folks here to make sure.

Second, I have always viewed the netCDF ADDE servers with some suspicion.
I came to this feeling quite some time ago while code diving while
trying to troubleshoot a problem I was experiencing.  I have not looked
at the code in a LONG time, so things may have changed since that one
experience.

Just so I understand what you are seeing: are you saying that you
can use the McIDAS ADDE netCDF server for netCDF file(s) generated
on 32-bit systems, but you can not use the file(s) generated on
64-bit systems?  If the answer is yes, perhaps the difference is
that the netCDF files generated on the 64-bit system have large file
support built-in while those created on the 32-bit system do not.
If this is the case, it means that the netCDF library built/used
in McIDAS would need to be built with large file support in order
to handle the file(s) created on the 64-bit system.

re:
> We got around to coming back to this issue and ran smack into a brick wall.
> Worse it's toward the end of another big project and this function is a key
> piece, so now I'm on the hook.  Looking for information more than actual
> code digging.  A new piece of information that surfaced was that when we
> generated netCDF files from the same BUFR point files on the 32 and 64-bit
> machines and ran ncdump on them, a comparison of the ncdump output showed
> only some rounding differences with the exception of the header info.
> Ncdump had no problems displaying all of the data in the files.  What I
> would like from you is validation (or not) of my perception that this
> information shows we are creating the netCDF files correctly on the 64-bit
> system, but that ncdfks is having issues.  We found that the 'hacked'
> version of ncdfks was not required to read the files on the 32-bit systems;
> we are using the McIDAS core ncdfks.  If this theory is correct, and SSEC
> tells me they have almost no one with any netCDF experience any more at
> least with the older McIDAS-X platforms so it's possible, then I can leave
> the transition software alone and focus on the server solution or
> eliminating the netCDF part completely and dumping it to some other
> structure.
> 
> Am I missing something here, do you think?  BTW we did make sure of all the
> linking issues before this.

The only thing that comes to mind that "feels sorta right" is the issue
with large file support.  I could be completely off base, of course;
getting a couple of files created from the same data on the different
platforms should go a long way towards affirming/negating my musing.

Cheers,

Tom
--
****************************************************************************
Unidata User Support                                    UCAR Unidata Program
(303) 497-8642                                                 P.O. Box 3000
address@hidden                                   Boulder, CO 80307
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unidata HomePage                       http://www.unidata.ucar.edu
****************************************************************************


Ticket Details
===================
Ticket ID: ABG-678484
Department: Support McIDAS
Priority: Normal
Status: Open


NOTE: All email exchanges with Unidata User Support are recorded in the Unidata inquiry tracking system and then made publicly available through the web. If you do not want to have your interactions made available in this way, you must let us know in each email you send to us.