You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A list of issue has crept up around the vector halo exchange. The extent of the problems are still to be determined but we are seeing:
a transparency issue: 1x1 and 3x3 layout seems to not give the same results for vector halo update on ndsl.
a difference with Fortran: likewise, when comparing 3x3 layout between ndsl and fms differences in data selection shows (ranks seems correct).
confusion about the C-grid/D-grid position of U and V in the acoustics portion of pyFV3: the last 2 halo exchanges on the n_split need to be clarified versus the reference Fortran.
Overall, the FMS and original Fortran uses the "staircase" projection of the cube-sphere, while ndsl uses the "T" projection. We need to go back and figure out exactly if this change has been carried through the code properly and document the differences to the original model.
DOD:
Use FMS to generate a failing unit test for ndsl on 3x3 layout for vector exchange
Fix the vector halo exchange or move roll the fix into the larger non-square layout work
Document cube-sphere representation for ndsl (vs FMS)
Investigate the acoustics halo exchange and make sure they are well named and perform the same operation as the reference Fortran
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'd like to add as part of the documenting of the cubed-sphere representation we should agree on the nomenclature for north, south, east, and west based on the origin of the domain, i.e. which "corner" is (0,0) located at for each tile.
A list of issue has crept up around the vector halo exchange. The extent of the problems are still to be determined but we are seeing:
ndsl
.ndsl
andfms
differences in data selection shows (ranks seems correct).acoustics
portion ofpyFV3
: the last 2 halo exchanges on then_split
need to be clarified versus the reference Fortran.Overall, the
FMS
and original Fortran uses the "staircase" projection of the cube-sphere, whilendsl
uses the "T" projection. We need to go back and figure out exactly if this change has been carried through the code properly and document the differences to the original model.DOD:
FMS
to generate a failing unit test forndsl
on 3x3 layout for vector exchangendsl
(vsFMS
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: