[MITgcm-devel] exf_interp_read

[Martin Losch]

Hi Jean-Michel,

I agree: default bufferSIze = 80000 and #define  
EXF_INTERP_USE_DYNALLOC sounds good to me.

Martin
On 12 May 2007, at 17:44, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> Hi Dimitris & Martin,
>
> Thanks for pointing this inconsistency and also for the suggestion.
> (in fact, did not know what bufferSize to use, a vague idea about
> fitting a 2x2 field, but forgot to change the value I took from
> global_with_exf/code/exf_interp_read.F ...).
> I am going to set it to 80000 so that a 1x1 deg field will fit.
>
> But since the previous version (with dynamic allocation) was
> working well (except may be for multi-threaded), I made
> #define EXF_INTERP_USE_DYNALLOC
> the default in pkg/exf/EXF_OPTIONS.h
>
> Is it OK like this ?
>
> Thanks,
> Jean-Michel
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:50:22PM -0700, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
>>> wouldn't it make sense to set the default really to 20000 (as  
>>> promised in
>>> the comment) which is larger than 192x94=18048 (the "standard"  
>>> size of
>>> ncep/core fields that we use for the cs510 for example)?
>>>
>>> Plus with the fields that I downloaded from Dimitiris, I have a  
>>> runoff
>>> file which is 360x180 = 64800.
>>> I am not happy about having a local copy of EXF_PARAMS.h in every  
>>> single
>>> experiment that uses EXF_USE_INTERPOLATION. How do you feel about  
>>> this?
>>> Couldn't we have a better default (more like 64800)?
>>
>> The ERA40/ECMWF fields that Patrick and I are starting to use are  
>> 320x160.
>> So 64800 would cover ERA40/ECMWF input but not 20000
>> .
>>
>> D.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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