[Wrf-users] Max number of CPUs for WRF
brick
brickflying at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 02:42:53 MDT 2012
Hi
Thanks for help.
Today I test wrf3.3 with 224 cores. It goes well. But when I increase cores
to 1120, wrf.exe didn't integrate after 6 hours and it also didn't stop or
return any error massage.
The rsl.out.0000 show that wrf.exe stop at deal with domain2. Last 20
lines of rsl.out.0000 is shown here.
769 Timing for main: time 2012-03-22_05:57:30 on domain 1: 0.10120
elapsed seconds.
770 Timing for main: time 2012-03-22_05:58:00 on domain 1: 0.10280
elapsed seconds.
771 Timing for main: time 2012-03-22_05:58:30 on domain 1: 0.10070
elapsed seconds.
772 Timing for main: time 2012-03-22_05:59:00 on domain 1: 0.10150
elapsed seconds.
773 Timing for main: time 2012-03-22_05:59:30 on domain 1: 0.10080
elapsed seconds.
774 Timing for main: time 2012-03-22_06:00:00 on domain 1: 0.09900
elapsed seconds.
775 *************************************
776 Nesting domain
777 ids,ide,jds,jde 1 151 1 196
778 ims,ime,jms,jme -4 15 -4 20
779 ips,ipe,jps,jpe 1 5 1 6
780 INTERMEDIATE domain
781 ids,ide,jds,jde 243 278 150 194
782 ims,ime,jms,jme 238 255 145 162
783 ips,ipe,jps,jpe 241 245 148 152
784 *************************************
785 d01 2012-03-22_06:00:00 alloc_space_field: domain 2,
786 18001632 bytes allocated
787 d01 2012-03-22_06:00:00 alloc_space_field: domain 2,
788 1941408 bytes allocated
789 d01 2012-03-22_06:00:00 *** Initializing nest domain # 2 from an input
file. **
790 *
791 d01 2012-03-22_06:00:00 med_initialdata_input: calling input_input
The namelist is :
1 &time_control
2 run_days = 0,
3 run_hours = 72,
4 run_minutes = 0,
5 run_seconds = 0,
6 start_year = 2012, 2012,
7 start_month = 03, 03,
8 start_day = 22, 22,
9 start_hour = 00, 06,
10 start_minute = 00, 00,
11 start_second = 00, 00,
12 end_year = 2012, 2012,
13 end_month = 03, 03,
14 end_day = 25, 23,
15 end_hour = 00, 06,
16 end_minute = 00, 00,
17 end_second = 00, 00,
18 interval_seconds = 21600,
19 input_from_file = .true.,.true.,
20 history_interval = 60, 60,
21 frames_per_outfile = 13,13,
22 restart = .false.,
23 restart_interval = 36000,
24 io_form_history = 2,
25 io_form_restart = 2,
26 io_form_input = 2,
27 io_form_boundary = 2,
28 debug_level = 0,
29 /
30
31 &domains
32 time_step = 30,
33 time_step_fract_num = 0,
34 time_step_fract_den = 1,
35 max_dom = 2,
36 s_we = 1, 1, 1,
37 e_we = 441, 151,
38 s_sn = 1, 1, 1,
39 e_sn = 369, 196,
40 s_vert = 1, 1, 1,
41 e_vert = 51,51,
42 p_top_requested = 5000,
43 num_metgrid_levels = 27,
44 num_metgrid_soil_levels = 4,
45 dx = 5000, 1000,
46 dy = 5000, 1000,
47 grid_id = 1, 2, 3,
48 parent_id = 0, 1, 2,
49 i_parent_start = 0, 245,
50 j_parent_start = 0, 152,
51 parent_grid_ratio = 1, 5,
52 parent_time_step_ratio = 1, 5,
53 feedback = 0,
54 smooth_option = 0,
55 /
56
57 &physics
58 mp_physics = 6,6,
59 ra_lw_physics = 1, 1, 1,
60 ra_sw_physics = 1, 1, 1,
61 radt = 5,1,
62 sf_sfclay_physics = 1,1,
63 sf_surface_physics = 2, 2, 2,
64 bl_pbl_physics = 1,1,
65 bldt = 0, 0, 0,
66 cu_physics = 0,0,
67 cudt = 5, 5, 5,
68 isfflx = 1,
69 ifsnow = 0,
70 icloud = 1,
71 surface_input_source = 1,
72 num_soil_layers = 4,
73 sf_urban_physics = 0, 0, 0,
74 /
75
76 &fdda
77 /
78
79 &dynamics
80 w_damping = 0,
81 diff_opt = 1,
82 km_opt = 4,
83 diff_6th_opt = 0, 0, 0,
84 diff_6th_factor = 0.12, 0.12, 0.12,
85 base_temp = 290.,
86 damp_opt = 1,
87 zdamp = 5000,
88 dampcoef = 0.01,
89 khdif = 0, 0, 0,
90 kvdif = 0, 0, 0,
91 non_hydrostatic = .true., .true., .true.,
92 moist_adv_opt = 1, 1, 1,
93 scalar_adv_opt = 1, 1, 1,
94 /
95
96 &bdy_control
97 spec_bdy_width = 5,
98 spec_zone = 1,
99 relax_zone = 4,
100 specified = .true., .false., .false.,
101 nested = .false., .true., .true.,
102 /
103
104 &grib2
105 /
106
107 &namelist_quilt
108 nio_tasks_per_group = 0,
109 nio_groups = 1,
110 imelist_quilt
111 108 nio_tasks_per_group = 0,
112 109 nio_groups = 1,
113 110 /
114
Thanks a lot.
brick
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Welsh, Patrick T <pat.welsh at unf.edu>wrote:
> It runs fine with hundreds, ok with thousands.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> On 3/23/12 4:12 AM, "brick" <brickflying at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Is there a limit of core number that WRF could use? I plan test WRF with
> 2048 cores or more next week. Could WRF run with such huge number?
> Thanks a lot.
>
> brick
>
>
> --
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20120326/973a8a03/attachment.html
More information about the Wrf-users
mailing list