So, are they writing to the same files?
I.e. job1 writes a(:,1) to test.nc and job2 writes a(:,2) to test.nc?
Because that is not allowed.
2015-09-21 15:13 GMT+02:00 Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein@xxxxxx>:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to convert about 90GB of NWP data 4 times daily from grib to
> netcdf. The grib-files arrive as fast as the data can be downloaded from
> the HPC machines. They come by 10 files/forecast timestep.
>
> Currently, I manage to convert 1 file/forecast timestep and I would like
> to parallelize the conversion into independent jobs (i.e. neither MPI or
> OpenMP), with a theoretical performance increase of 10. The underlying
> IO system is fast enough to handle 10 jobs, and I have enough CPUs, but
> the concurrently written netcdf-files show data which is only written
> half to the disk, or mixed with other slices.
>
> What I do is create a _FILL_VALUE 'template' file, containing all
> definitions before the NWP job runs. When a new set of files arrives,
> the data is put to the respective data-slices which don't have any
> overlap, there is never a redefine, only functions like: nc_put_vara_*
> with different slices.
>
> Since the nc_put_vara_* calls are non-overlapping, I hoped that this
> type of concurrent write would work - but it doesn't. Is my idea really
> so bad to write data in parallel (e.g. there are internal buffers which
> are rewritten)? Any ideas how to improve the conversion process?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Heiko
>
> _______________________________________________
> netcdfgroup mailing list
> netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
>
--
Kind regards Nick
