[MITgcm-devel] Re: it's probably my faults again, but ...

[Martin Losch]

Hi,
I have run a quick test with the appended stuff, (cs32 with 91 8x8  
tiles) and the model produces NaNs right away, in the first timestep.  
So there appears to be something broken in exch2? (after my great  
lapse last week I dare not claim anything anymore).

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: s91t.tgz
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 88026 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20070220/8c092c9c/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------

On 20 Feb 2007, at 18:44, Martin Losch wrote:

> Dimitris,
>
> the reason why I think it's the seaice-ice model (but the problem  
> may very well have nothing to do with the seaice-model, but only  
> show up in the seaice model first) is that the monitor output has  
> valuse of > 1e173 for u/vice_del2 while all other variables look ok  
> for time step 1440 (which is the time step of the pickup, that is  
> at this point nothing has happended so far, and the do_the_model_io  
> and monitor packages are called from initialise_varia.
>
> which one is the cs32  test, so I can try it, too?
>
> Martin
>
> On 20 Feb 2007, at 18:32, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
>
>> Martin, I am transferring your e-mail to devel list as Chris or  
>> others may have comments.  What makes you think that it is the sea- 
>> ice model that causes trouble?  I have used the s1500t_17x51/ 
>> SIZE.h_500 configuration in the past successfully but have not  
>> done so in a very long time.  What is special about this  
>> configuration is that there are holes in the domain, i.e., no  
>> computations take place over some of the land.
>>
>> >>> MY QUESTION TO THE DEVEL LIST IS WHETHER ANYONE ELSE HAS USED
>> >>> DOMAINS WITH HOLES RECENTLY?
>>
>> I don't think that this part of the exch2 package is tested on  
>> regular basis, so it may be broken.  I am in process of  
>> rearranging the description of experiments, etc., as per your  
>> suggestions and there is a small test with holes on the 32x6x32  
>> domain that I plan to test and get back.  D.
>>
>>
>>> ... just to make sure that I am not trying something stupid:  
>>> After having
>>> made one day of integration on 216 CPUs (and actually picking up  
>>> and running
>>> a second day with 216 CPUs), I have tried using a higher number  
>>> of CPUs
>>> (which is more effective on the machine that I am running on),  
>>> that is the
>>> SIZE.h_500 in the s1500t directory. So I replaced SIZE.h with  
>>> SIZE.h_500 and
>>> w2_ee2setup.F and W2_EXCH_TOPOLOGY.h and recompiled. Then I tried  
>>> to restart
>>> from the same pickup, from which I have already successfully  
>>> started with
>>> 216CPUs. The model starts (after waiting 4days in the queue) and  
>>> seems to
>>> pickup fine, at least the model part.
>>> [ now it's definitely my fault, that I send this email  
>>> prematurely, sorry for
>>> that ]
>>> I am attaching the stdout, and you can see that something is  
>>> wrong with the
>>> seaice model and then the first timestep is already very wrong.  
>>> My eedata is
>>> correct this time. And I am using the MULTICATEGORY seaice (all  
>>> the way, it's
>>> also in the pickup files), but that shouldn't make a difference,  
>>> should it?
>>> So my question is really: Do you regularily use this  
>>> configuration at all or
>>> have I made one of my famous mistakes again?
>>> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel