Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update FMS to allow MOM6 to run at 64-bit and FV3 at 32-bit #618

Closed
binli2337 opened this issue Jun 3, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Update FMS to allow MOM6 to run at 64-bit and FV3 at 32-bit #618

binli2337 opened this issue Jun 3, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@binli2337
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Both FV3 dynamic core and MOM6 use FMS. With enormous computational requirements required for GFSv17 implementation, it is desirable to allow MOM6 to run at 64-bit precision and FV3 at 32-bit. To do so, we need to implement a mixed mode FMS for UFS.

Solution

It is expected that some module interfaces need to be revised or developed.

@binli2337 binli2337 added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 3, 2021
@binli2337 binli2337 self-assigned this Jun 3, 2021
@arunchawla-NOAA
Copy link

@binli2337 and @junwang-noaa how is this different from issue 1036 ?

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator

junwang-noaa commented Mar 4, 2022 via email

@arunchawla-NOAA
Copy link

so can we close this?

pjpegion pushed a commit to NOAA-PSL/ufs-weather-model that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2023
…ufs-community#618)

* Use 32bit value for 'missing_value' and '_FillValue' attributes
epic-cicd-jenkins pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2023
## DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES: 
This PR is one of two in a series that addresses refactoring platform-dependence. The topic of this PR is to refactor the logic for supporting platforms with specific real-time data feeds. Here is a list of features and modifications that were made:

- Apply appropriate style for functions, mainly related to white space for nested code and comments.
- Make external model file offset hours configurable for analysis- and forecast-type files because sometimes we like to start a forecast from a forecast of another model.
- Refactor to reduce duplication of information.
- Set up filenames and paths to be specified with templates in a consistent way for every model instead of with bash logic that is different for every model's naming convention.
- Remove paths that do not exist on platforms I have access to: Jet and Hera.

No changes were made to the logic for input managed by USE_USER_STAGED_EXTRN_FILES or COMINGgfs for NCO mode, although it could make sense to re-assess the NCO mode handling at a later date.

I plan to go through and "review" the code to lead reviewers through this one since it bit of change. It may be helpful to view it using GitHub's ignore whitespace feature. 

## TESTS CONDUCTED: 
Test cases using the WE2E test on Hera; see PR for full list.
   
A test case for the same forecast configuration using known paths on Hera to exercise the new code. 

I checked that arrays were consistent, that the script exits in a sane manner when files are not available on disk or HPSS, and that I haven't broken anything with the way files are handled through the "user specified" mechanism necessary for the test framework.

## ISSUE (optional): 
This work is an incremental change in support of Issue #618 

## CONTRIBUTORS (optional): 
@christopherwharrop-noaa @venitahagerty @robgonzalezpita
epic-cicd-jenkins pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2023
…t tasks into two) (#618)

1. Rename verification tasks and corresponding j-jobs, ex-scripts, and log files as described in issue #619.

2. Separate combined METplus vx tasks for surface and upper air into separate tasks. This is so that there is only one call to a METplus tool per ROCOTO task and helps simplify the workflow and debugging.

3. Ensure that each vx task has a separate section in config_defaults.yaml with its own resource variables (WTIME_..., PPN_..., etc).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants