Hi,
I'm sorry for the late reply.
I have no classic/netcdf-3 datasets --- datasets are to be generated. All
my codes are also new.
Initially i tried with pnetcdf, wrote a few variables, but found that the
format was CDF-5 which 'normal' netcdf would not read.
I also need to read some bits of netcdf data in Matlab, so i thought of
sticking to the usual netcdf-4 compiled for parallel io. It is also likely
that i will have to share my workload with others in my group and/or leave
the code for future people to work on.
Does matlab read cdf-5 files?
So i preferred the usual netcdf. Rob, i hope you are not annoyed.
But most of the above is for another day. Currently i am stuck elsewhere.
With a less no of processors, 216, the single netcdf file gets created (i
create i single netcdf file for each variable), but for anything above that
i get these errors:
NetCDF: Bad chunk sizes.
Not sure where these errors come from.
Then i shifted to dumping outputs from each processor in simple binary ---
this works till about 1500 processors. Above this number the code gets
stuck and eventually aborts.
This issue is not new. My colleague too had problems with running his code
on 1500+ procs.
Today i came to know that opening a large number of files (each proc writes
1 file) can overwhelm the system --- solving this requires more than
rudimentary techniques of writing --- or understanding the system's
inherent parameters/bottlenecks.
So netcdf is probably out of bounds for now --- will try again if the
simple binary write from each processor gets sorted out.
Does anyone have any suggestion?
Thanks,
Samrat.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Rob Latham <robl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/02/2014 01:24 AM, Samrat Rao wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your replies.
>>
>> I estimate that i will be requiring approx 4000 processors and a total
>> grid resolution of 2.5 billion for my F90 code. So i need to
>> think/understand which is better - parallel netCDF or the 'normal' one.
>>
>
> There are a few specific nifty features in pnetcdf that can let you get
> really good performance, but 'normal' netCDF is a fine choice, too.
>
> Right now I do not know how to use parallel-netCDF.
>>
>
> It's almost as simple as replacing every 'nf' call with 'nfmpi' but you
> will be just fine if you stick with UCAR netCDF-4
>
> Secondly, i hope that the netCDF-4 files created by either parallel
>> netCDF or the 'normal' one are mutually compatible. For analysis I will
>> be extracting data using the usual netCDF library, so in case i use
>> parallel-netCDF then there should be no inter-compatibility issues.
>>
>
> For truly large variables, parallel-netcdf introduced, with some
> consultation from the UCAR folks, a 'CDF-5' file format. You have to
> request it explicitly, and then in that one case you would have a pnetcdf
> file that netcdf tools would not understand.
>
> In all other cases, we work hard to keep pnetcdf and "classic" netcdf
> compatible. UCAR NetCDF has the option for an HDF5-based backend -- and in
> fact it's not an option if you want parallel I/O with NetCDF-4 -- is not
> compatible with parallel-netcdf. By now, your analysis tools surely are
> updated to understand the new HDF5-based backend?
>
> I suppose it's possible you've got some 6 year old analysis tool that does
> not understand NetCDF-4's HDF5-based file format. Parallel-netcdf would
> allow you to simulate with parallel i/o and produce a classic netCDF file.
> But I would be shocked and a little bit angry if that was actually a good
> reason to use parallel-netcdf in 2014.
>
>
> ==rob
>
>
> --
> Rob Latham
> Mathematics and Computer Science Division
> Argonne National Lab, IL USA
>
--
Samrat Rao
Research Associate
Engineering Mechanics Unit
Jawaharlal Centre for Advanced Scientific Research
Bangalore - 560064, India
