[Wrf-users] WRF-NMM installation problem for 64bit RedHat Linux with PGI 7.0-2

[Do, Jong-Gwan]

Hello,

That means compiler are using useless CPU time in compiling
start_domain_nmm.f90.
If you can see the source code of start_domain_nmm.f90, that file will
consists of module information and function calling. So there is no
need to compile that file with highest optimization level and there
will be no performance impact by doing this.

There are many source files with these characteristics in WRF. Edit
your configure.wrf file and make a change for compiling
start_domain_nmm.f90 and other similiar files with lower
optimizations.

Regards,
Jong-Gwan

2007/4/3, Guoqing Tang <gtang at ncat.edu>:
>
>
>
> Dear list users,
>
> Here is a problem I ran into when I tried to nstall WRF-NMM V2.2 in a  64
> bit RHEL WS 4 with PGI 7.0-2 choosing Option 3 (RSL-LITE, MPICH, Allowing
> Nesting, No periodic LBC). The installation was always running in an
> infinite loop and taking up almost 4 GB of physical memory and half of 10 GB
> swap space. During one installation, I let it run over night. When I came
> back next morning, it was still trying to compile start_domain_nmm.f90 after
> more than 8 hourcompilation. However, it did not give any error message in
> the compile log file, but just simply hanged there forever. Here is the last
> line of compilation where complilation went into a loop:
>
> mpif90 -c -fastsse  -w -byteswapio -Mfree  -I../dyn_em -I../dyn_nmm  -module
> ../main -I../external/io_netcdf -I../external/io_int
> -I../external/esmf_time_f90 -I../external -I../frame -I../share -I../phys
> -I../inc -I../chem -r4 -i4  start_domain_nmm.f90
>
> However, when I switched to Option 2 (RSL, MPICH, Allowing nesting),
> compilation went through easily in less than a hour. Both WRF-NMM and WPS
> were properly installed, and work fine with this choice, but WRF
> Postprocessor compilation won't work due to lack of prepor RSL-LITE
> libraries and other objet files.
>
> My question is: is there any fix for the installation problem when using
> Option 3 for 64 bit Linux? I noticed on Wrf-users online and found someone
> posted a similar problem. However, I haven't seen a solution to it yet. Any
> help is greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Guoqing Tang
> _______________________________________________
> Wrf-users mailing list
> Wrf-users at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users
>
>