[MITgcm-devel] adjoint and vectorizing options

[gael forget]

Hi Jean-Michel and Martin,

thanks Jean-Michel for catching this failure that seems to have originated from fast opt.de:
> ssh: Could not resolve hostname fastopt.de: Temporary failure in name resolution

I just completed the cs32 adjoint test, and started llc90 with "-addr jmc at mitgcm.org"

As a side note, I am planning to revise a few more things in pkg/ctrl later today, 
which I believe are completely independent of Martin’s seaice revision.

Cheers,
Gael

On Jun 12, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> I don't see problems in make the changes you propose. 
> 
> Regarding timing, I would like to check with Gael why his AD glacier
> latest test are all failing before further changes in pkg/seaice.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:52:00PM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
>> Hi Patrick, Jean-Michel,
>> 
>> I have returned to the adjoint of seaice_lsr. I cannot claim success, but I have tried to clean up  the tridiagonal solvers, so that their logic corresponds very much to ???model/src/solver_tridiagonal.F??? 
>> 
>> The adjoint still explodes (for cost_ice_flag=7, which is bascially uice**2), but I can get rid of the extra stores in seaice_lsr_tridiagu/v, so I would like to check in this code probably even today, as a new starting point.
>> 
>> There are issues: 
>> - the adjoint simulations of lab_sea changes
>> 
>> - I modified the action of the SEAICE_VECTORIZE_LSR_ZEBRA flag, so that this ???zebra??? algorithm can also be used without SEAICE_VECTORIZE_LSR. This means that the name is misleading and I would like to rename it to SEAICE_LSR_ZEBRA (shorter and more accurate). How do we deal with this? Should I just do it (becaues basically nobody except me and maybe some AWI people uses this flag anyway, or should I make sure that the model stops if the obsolete flat SEAICE_VECTORIZE_LSR_ZEBRA is defined?
>> 
>> - I would like my ???zebra??? code to be tested. Since lab_sea will change anyway, this may be good option. What do you think?
>> 
>> And then: should I wait until after the weekend for any of these changes, or should I go ahead now?
>> 
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1839 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20150612/598eaec5/attachment.p7s>