-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
update to latest cmeps master #22
update to latest cmeps master #22
Conversation
…water_option Update TFREEZE_SALTWATER_OPTION value for MOM6
cleanup and changes to be consistent with nems
…/updcmeps merge Ufuk's hafs-cdeps commit
@junwang-noaa @binli2337 Thanks for the reviews. As it turns out, the performance update to cmeps (Issue #23) is also now ready. I've done a test comparing the cpld_control<> tests in this branch with a branch including the performance update. Comparing the coupler restart files between the two, I get b4b results. So the performance update has no impact on answers. I also did a 5d test run using the cpld_control_c384 test case. Comparing just the wall clock time, the perf run was about 3min faster. For a 35d run, that would be ~20min faster. So the question is whether we go ahead and include the perf update at this time. |
Thanks for doing the tests, I'd suggest to include the performance updates
in this PR.
…On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 8:09 AM Denise Worthen ***@***.***> wrote:
@junwang-noaa <https://github.com/junwang-noaa> @binli2337
<https://github.com/binli2337> Thanks for the reviews. As it turns out,
the performance update to cmeps (Issue #23
<#23>) is also now ready. I've
done a test comparing the cpld_control<> tests in this branch with a branch
including the performance update. Comparing the coupler restart files
between the two, I get b4b results. So the performance update has no impact
on answers.
I also did a 5d test run using the cpld_control_c384 test case. Comparing
just the wall clock time, the perf run was about 3min faster. For a 35d
run, that would be ~20min faster. So the question is whether we go ahead
and include the perf update at this time.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TOJLIOEUWZCWHYQRL3SNKUIRANCNFSM4TBP4K3Q>
.
|
OK thanks. As soon as they merge the perf branch into master I will update my branch and merge to emc/develop. |
original code failed with rc2 error using gnu compiler
performance upgrades - primarily creation of packed fields for regridding
Adds field-packing performance features
Resolves Issue #17
Resolves Issue #23
Description of changes
Fixes incorrect mapping of ifrac for both nems_orig and nems_frac modes. The mapping of the ifrac to the atm in
med_fraction_mod
was done with either conservative fraction (nems_frac) or nstod conservative fraction (nems_orig). It should have been conservative destination or nstod conservative destination. For nems_orig, this replicates the mapping that was done in the nems mediator.Adds diagnostic budgets (cesm)
Fixes bug for land runoff (cesm)
Adds field packing for better performance.
Baseline Change
Answers change for all baselines in coupled model. These changes are solely due to fix of ifrac mapping. Other changes made for CESM have no impact on UFS
No impact on NEMS Datm since no mapping is done back to the Atm
Performance update to CMEPS (field packing) has no impact on results. Verified by running all ufs-weather s2s and datm regression tests with and without the addition of the performance features. All baselines were b4b.