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

[Martin Losch]

rats, forgot to include blanklist.txt:
31
34
35
47
79

M.

On 20 Feb 2007, at 21:01, Martin Losch wrote:

> 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
> <s91t.tgz>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel