This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
John, >Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:00:55 -0500 (EST) >From: address@hidden (John Sheldon) >Organization: NOAA/GFDL >Subject: Re: 960329: netCDF 2.4.1 ncsync/ffflush >Keywords: 199603281505.AA27313 In the above message you wrote: > Hmmm...does this imply a problem in ffflush()? Should Cray look into > this? It seems unreasonable that netCDF can't count on being able to > flush the data to the file, or that a subsequent read can't find the > data that was already sent out, whether it actually went to disk or is > still in the cache. Well, I suppose reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. I just checked your FFIO specification (cache:336:2) on our UNICOS 8 Y-MP and it caused ncsync() to fail. The UNICOS 8 default specification (bufa:336:2) however, allowed ncsync() to succeed. I suspect it's a case of Cray trying to prevent programmers from shooting themselves in the foot, but not being able to stop a really determined one. ;-) I suggest that you try to find another default UNICOS 7 FFIO specification -- one that doesn't cause ncsync() to fail. The following URL might help http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/packages/netcdf/guide_11.html#SEC88 It's the section in the netCDF User's Guide dealing with UNICOS optimization. Unfortunately, most of the candidate FFIO specifications have `cache' in their strings (a bad omen?). Maybe a `crayon' could help? Please let me know if you find a more suitable specification. -------- Steve Emmerson <address@hidden>