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 Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated.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.
On Dec 4, 4:57pm, John Sheldon wrote: > Hi again Glenn- > > Well, I finally managed to successfully merge versions 2.4.3 and 3.2a. > One major holdup was Cray's "make" which sometimes refuses to update > targets despite an undeniable need to do so - I wasted 2 days on > that... > > Anyhow, I ran a couple of timing tests to check out the speed of 3.2. > There's good news and bad news. The good news is that prefill no > longer takes inordinately longer than regular writes (in fact, it seems > to take amlost no extra CP time, and the wall-clock time is about > double, as expected). The bad news is that regular writes take about > 20x more CP time than did version 2.4.2. I tried increasing > NC_PG_CHUNK bay factors of 16 and 128, and made the change to NFILL as > well. Here is a "ja -clt" for 2.4.2 vs 3.2a/2.4.3 for the case where I > "#define NC_PG_CHUNK 2097152": > > Elapsed User CPU Sys CPU I/O Wait I/O Wait CPU MEM > Seconds Seconds Seconds Sec Lck Sec Unlck Avg Mwds > ========= ========== ========== ======== ========== ========= > 2.4.2 35.1762 6.4618 1.3875 20.8732 6.4732 2.4692 > 2.4.3/3.2a 161.1328 112.0403 4.2477 15.6226 29.3560 1.6070 > > In both cases, I have setenv NETCDF_FFIOSPEC set to "cachea:512:4". > > Any suggestions? I am going to try "#define NC_PG_CHUNK 67108864" next... It is hard to tell what to suggest without profiling. I asked NCAR's Cray site rep to try to get me an account on a T90, but he hasn't responded. I think it is in our best interest to jump through the hoops. Can you get things rolling to get me an account on Thanks. -glenn