[Wrf-users] WRF-3.1: Qn about em_b_wave test
Nils Dorband
dorband at googlemail.com
Wed Aug 19 01:09:09 MDT 2009
Hi,
According to your output files, your run was successful and evolving the
test case for 10h. (this is 10h in model time, not in wall time. It could
well be ok, that it only takes a few seconds to finish that kind of run.)
In your output files (i.e. rsl.error.0000, ...), you find lines like
Timing for main: time 0001-01-01_10:50:00 on domain 1: 1.27500 elapsed
seconds.
that show you the model time, and the wall time seconds it took to compute
that iteration.
Cheers,
Nils
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Sangamesh B <forum.san at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear WRF users,
>
> I'm a beginner to WRF and want to test its performance scaling on a HPC
> cluster. Installed it successfully with MPI support for parallel.
>
> To check whether the compilation is successful or not, executed a sample
> test 'em_b_wave' with run_hours=10. But it executed for a few seconds even
> though I had mentioned 10 hours.
>
> I'm don't know whether this successful or not.
>
> The commands used are:
>
> ./ideal.exe
>
> ./wrf.exe
>
> The generated output files are:
>
> rsl.out.0000 - file attached
> rsl.error.0000 - file attached
> wrfout_d01_0001-01-01_01:00:00
>
> The content of namelist.input is:
>
> # cat namelist.input
> &time_control
> run_days = 0,
> run_hours = 10,
> run_minutes = 0,
> run_seconds = 0,
> start_year = 0001, 0001, 0001,
> start_month = 01, 01, 01,
> start_day = 01, 01, 01,
> start_hour = 01, 01, 01,
> start_minute = 00, 00, 00,
> start_second = 00, 00, 00,
> end_year = 0001, 0001, 0001,
> end_month = 01, 01, 01,
> end_day = 01, 01, 01,
> end_hour = 06, 06, 06,
> end_minute = 00, 00, 00,
> end_second = 00, 00, 00,
> history_interval = 360, 360, 360,
> frames_per_outfile = 1000, 1000, 1000,
> restart = .false.,
> restart_interval = 3600,
> io_form_history = 2
> io_form_restart = 2
> io_form_input = 2
> io_form_boundary = 2
> debug_level = 0
> /
>
> &domains
> time_step = 600,
> time_step_fract_num = 0,
> time_step_fract_den = 1,
> max_dom = 1,
> s_we = 1, 1, 1,
> e_we = 41, 41, 41,
> s_sn = 1, 1, 1,
> e_sn = 81, 81, 81,
> s_vert = 1, 1, 1,
> e_vert = 65, 65, 65,
> dx = 100000,20000, 4000,
> dy = 100000,20000, 4000,
> ztop = 16000, 16000, 16000,
> grid_id = 1, 2, 3,
> parent_id = 0, 1, 2,
> i_parent_start = 0, 17, 17,
> j_parent_start = 0, 33, 33,
> parent_grid_ratio = 1, 5, 5,
> parent_time_step_ratio = 1, 5, 5,
> feedback = 1,
> smooth_option = 0
> /
>
> &physics
> mp_physics = 0, 0, 0,
> ra_lw_physics = 0, 0, 0,
> ra_sw_physics = 0, 0, 0,
> radt = 30, 30, 30,
> sf_sfclay_physics = 0, 0, 0,
> sf_surface_physics = 0, 0, 0,
> bl_pbl_physics = 0, 0, 0,
> bldt = 0, 0, 0,
> cu_physics = 0, 0, 0,
> cudt = 5, 5, 5,
> isfflx = 1,
> ifsnow = 0,
> icloud = 1,
> num_soil_layers = 5,
> /
>
> &fdda
> /
>
> &dynamics
> rk_ord = 3,
> diff_opt = 1,
> km_opt = 1,
> damp_opt = 0,
> zdamp = 4000., 4000., 4000.,
> dampcoef = 0.01, 0.01, 0.01
> khdif = 0, 0, 0,
> kvdif = 0, 0, 0,
> smdiv = 0.1, 0.1, 0.1,
> emdiv = 0.01, 0.01, 0.01,
> epssm = 0.1, 0.1, 0.1
> time_step_sound = 4, 4, 4,
> h_mom_adv_order = 5, 5, 5,
> v_mom_adv_order = 3, 3, 3,
> h_sca_adv_order = 5, 5, 5,
> v_sca_adv_order = 3, 3, 3,
> non_hydrostatic = .true., .true., .true.,
> /
>
> &bdy_control
> periodic_x = .true., .false.,.false.,
> symmetric_xs = .false.,.false.,.false.,
> symmetric_xe = .false.,.false.,.false.,
> open_xs = .false.,.false.,.false.,
> open_xe = .false.,.false.,.false.,
> periodic_y = .false.,.false.,.false.,
> symmetric_ys = .true., .false.,.false.,
> symmetric_ye = .true., .false.,.false.,
> open_ys = .false.,.false.,.false.,
> open_ye = .false.,.false.,.false.,
> nested = .false., .true., .true.,
> /
>
> &grib2
> /
>
> &namelist_quilt
> nio_tasks_per_group = 0,
> nio_groups = 1,
> /
> #
>
> The procedure that I followed is correct or wrong?
>
> If I have to run it for 10 hours, what parameters should I modify in
> namelist.input?
>
> Thank you
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wrf-users mailing list
> Wrf-users at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20090819/316f05b7/attachment.html
More information about the Wrf-users
mailing list