[MITgcm-support] sponge limited to one process?

[Ryan Abernathey]

I second the recommendation of RBCS for sponge layers. If you don't need
actual boundary inflow / outflow (which only OBCS can do), RBCS is more
flexible and intuitive to understand.

-Ryan

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Martin Losch <martin.losch at awi.de> wrote:

> You can use the rbcs package for sponge-layers that are independent of
> tile size.
>
> M.
>
> > On 18 Aug 2016, at 08:48, Sherry <schou at hawaii.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am setting up a sponge layer on the eastern boundary of a 2D
> configuration through making changes to data.obcs (following instructions
> of the manual).
> > The problem I have is when the number of points in one tile (on one
> process) is less than the number of points in the sponge (i.e. sNx <
> spongeThickness). In this case the sponge will start suddenly in the last
> tile, instead of farther away from the eastern boundary according to
> spongeThickness. This changes the extent of the sponge, as well as the
> value of Urelaxobcsbound at the beginning of the sponge.
> >
> > I've been getting around this problem by using a smaller number of
> parallel-processes, or by making the xgrid coarser in the sponge so that it
> can fit into one tile. But I was wondering if this is a real problem or
> maybe I'm doing something wrong in my set-up.
> >
> > Thanks for reading!
> >
> > Sherry Chou
> > University of Hawaii
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20160818/99e4a27e/attachment.htm>