[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 20001129: netCDF offset limitations
- Subject: Re: 20001129: netCDF offset limitations
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:14:36 -0700
>From: "maseland j.e.j." <address@hidden>
>Subject: netCDF offset limitations
>Organization: National Aerospace Lab. NLR
>Keywords: 200011291622.eATGMro00850 netCDF 3.4 size offset limitations
Hi Hans,
> we encounter read errors for netCDF Version 3.4 files larger than 2.1
> Gbyte for SUPER UX-10.2. We are aware of the offset limitations for
> netCDF file containing fixed length variables. However the formulation
> of the limitations is in my view ambiguous:
>
> "On systems that support very large files (exceeding 2 Gbytes), such as
> IRIX 6.x or SunOS 5.6 with the large file compilation environment, it
> is possible to create and access very large netCDF files with version
> 3.4. The remaining size constraints are that the file offset to the
> beginning of the record variables (if any) must be less than 2 Gbytes,
> and the relative offset to the start of each fixed length variable or
> each record variable within a record must be less than 2 Gbytes."
>
> My confusion originates from the word "relative". Does relative mean here
> with respect to the start of the previous date part (visualised as
> method 1).
> Or is the offset to the position of the start of fixed-size data
> part computed relative to the header (visualised as method 2)?
>
> Method 1: Method 2:
> --------------- -------------
> --->| header | | header |<---------
> | --------------- ------------- | | |
> --->| | | |<-- | |
> | | data1 | | data1 | | |
> | | | | | | |
> | --------------- ------------- | |
> --->| | | |<----- |
> | | data2 | | data2 | |
> | | | | | |
> | --------------- ------------- |
> --->| | | |<---------
> | data3 | | data3 |
> | | | |
> --------------- -------------
> In case of method 1, the offset value for each fixed size variable
> must be smaller than 2.1 Gbyte.
> In case of method 2, the offset value for the last fixed size variable
> must be smaller than 2.1 Gbtye.
>
> To which method is referred to in your text?
Method 2 was the intended interpretation. Sorry for the confusion,
I'll try to make this clearer in the next revision.
I wish it were easy to remove this limitation, but it requires a
change to the format, which for netCDF would be a very big change.
--Russ
_____________________________________________________________________
Russ Rew UCAR Unidata Program
address@hidden http://www.unidata.ucar.edu