On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Gerry Creager wrote:
We've been playing with it in a coupled atmosphere-ocean model to
allow
the two to synchronize and exchange data. The models have differing
levels of physics complexity and the time step requirements are
significantly different. To sync them
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Gerry Creager wrote:
We've been playing with it in a coupled atmosphere-ocean model to allow
the two to synchronize and exchange data. The models have differing
levels of physics complexity and the time step requirements are
significantly differ
On Mar 5, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Joe Landman wrote:
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Gerry Creager wrote:
We've been playing with it in a coupled atmosphere-ocean model to
allow
the two to synchronize and exchange data. The models have differing
levels of physics complexity and
Ralph Castain wrote:
Ummmnot to put gasoline on the fire, but...if the data exchange is
blocking, why do you need to call a barrier op first? Just use an
appropriate blocking data exchange call (collective or whatever) and it
will "barrier" anyway.
Since I don't run these codes, I would
Jeff Squyres wrote:
If you're exchanging data at the end of an iteration, then you
effectively have a synchronization anyway -- no need for an extra
barrier synchronization.
Ralph Castain wrote:
Ummmnot to put gasoline on the fire, but...if the data exchange
is blocking, why do you n
Hi All
Joe Landman wrote:
Ralph Castain wrote:
Ummmnot to put gasoline on the fire, but...if the data exchange is
blocking, why do you need to call a barrier op first? Just use an
appropriate blocking data exchange call (collective or whatever) and
it will "barrier" anyway.
Since I don
Joe Landman wrote:
Ralph Castain wrote:
Ummmnot to put gasoline on the fire, but...if the data exchange is
blocking, why do you need to call a barrier op first? Just use an
appropriate blocking data exchange call (collective or whatever) and
it will "barrier" anyway.
Since I don't run t
