-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
Add the RRFS_NA_3km pre-defined domain to the SRW App #480
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
Changes from all commits
3f97757
2b1299f
44fc906
02012e7
d0479a3
49d6e73
1b64665
fee99df
4e9c2ff
db50160
6de94f5
f996d2e
f6a973c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ | ||
| RUN_ENVIR="community" | ||
| PREEXISTING_DIR_METHOD="rename" | ||
|
|
||
| PREDEF_GRID_NAME="RRFS_NA_3km" | ||
| QUILTING="TRUE" | ||
|
|
||
| CCPP_PHYS_SUITE="FV3_GSD_SAR" | ||
|
|
||
| FCST_LEN_HRS="06" | ||
| LBC_SPEC_INTVL_HRS="6" | ||
|
|
||
| DATE_FIRST_CYCL="20190701" | ||
| DATE_LAST_CYCL="20190701" | ||
| CYCL_HRS=( "00" ) | ||
|
|
||
| EXTRN_MDL_NAME_ICS="FV3GFS" | ||
| EXTRN_MDL_NAME_LBCS="FV3GFS" | ||
| USE_USER_STAGED_EXTRN_FILES="TRUE" | ||
|
|
||
| ######################################################################### | ||
| # The following code/namelist/workflow setting changes are necessary to # | ||
| # run/optimize end-to-end experiments using the 3-km NA grid # | ||
| ######################################################################### | ||
|
|
||
| # The model should be built in 32-bit mode (64-bit will result in much | ||
| # longer run times. | ||
|
|
||
| # Use k_split=5 and n_split=2, the previous namelist values (k_split=4 | ||
| # and n_split=5) will result in significantly longer run times. | ||
|
|
||
| # For Hera: | ||
| # 1) With 64-bit build and k_split=4/n_split=5, each time step takes ~21 seconds | ||
| # 2) 1) with k_split=5/n_split=2, each time step takes ~15 seconds | ||
| # 3) 2) with 32-bit build, each time step takes ~6 seconds | ||
|
|
||
| NNODES_MAKE_ICS="12" | ||
| NNODES_MAKE_LBCS="12" | ||
| PPN_MAKE_ICS="4" | ||
| PPN_MAKE_LBCS="4" | ||
| WTIME_MAKE_LBCS="01:00:00" | ||
|
|
||
| PPN_RUN_FCST="24" | ||
|
|
||
| NNODES_RUN_POST="6" | ||
| PPN_RUN_POST="12" | ||
|
|
||
| OMP_STACKSIZE_RUN_FCST="2048m" | ||
|
|
||
| ############################################################################### | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1657,7 +1657,7 @@ KMP_AFFINITY_RUN_FCST="scatter" | |
| OMP_NUM_THREADS_RUN_FCST="4" | ||
| OMP_STACKSIZE_RUN_FCST="1024m" | ||
|
|
||
| CPUS_PER_TASK_RUN_FCST="4" | ||
| CPUS_PER_TASK_RUN_FCST="2" | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @JeffBeck-NOAA I'm testing this PR on Cheyenne right now. Aside from that, my only comment is about this line: Can you provide a brief justification for this change to the defaults in your PR message? This (along with the other changes you already mention) has the potential to impact others significantly.
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks @mkavulich. Good catch on this. Setting this field to "4" was doubling the requested nodes for the run_fcst task. For example, a 3-km CONUS run that normally requests 25 nodes (based on predefined layout_x/y values) was asking for 50, simply because CPUS_PER_TASK_RUN_FCST=4, which was unacceptable. When it is set to "2", the number of nodes remains unchanged, in line with the layout_x/y values. EMC is using CPUS_PER_TASK_RUN_FCST=2 for their runs. I can add this to the PR message. |
||
|
|
||
| KMP_AFFINITY_RUN_POST="scatter" | ||
| OMP_NUM_THREADS_RUN_POST="1" | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One more comment: Should this use the RRFS_v1alpha suite instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it probably should be. I can change it in the PR, but with the problems we're having with RRFS_v1alpha at the moment, we can't test with that suite (at least not on Hera).