NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
--Greg On 3/5/13 10:12 AM, Russ Rew wrote:
Hi Doug,Hi Heiko: I think these calls to nc_sync have been there a long time. I don't recall the original reason for them. Before netcdf version 4.1 was nc_sync just a no-op? If this is the case, then maybe we should put in an AUTOSYNC option with the default = 0 (do not sync). If the netcdf group has ideas about the utility of nc_sync before netcdf version 4.1, then perhaps we should add the AUTOSYNC option with default = 1 (do sync). Another alternative would be to remove all calls to nc_sync and then make available and advertise a sync method in PDL::NetCDF. NetCDF group: Was nc_sync useful before netcdf version 4.1?Not sure about how useful it was, but there were complaints about not having a function in the netCDF API that called fsync(). See, for example, this posting, and other parent postings in the same thread, if you're interested in the discussion and use case leading up to adding fsync() to nc_sync() unless configured with "--disable-fsync": http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/archives/netcdfgroup/2009/msg00411.html It was added to version 4.1, released on 2010-01-30, after asking for comments and tests of release candidates. We welcome comments about whether the default is wrong and why. It would be possible to change the upcoming 4.3.0 release to require configuring with "--enable-fsync" to get the fsync() call in nc_sync(), if there is a compelling reason why this would improve netCDF for most users. --RussOn Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Heiko Klein wrote:Hi Doug, we just upgraded to Ubuntu Precise (12.04) and have for the first time a netcdf version >= 4.1. With this upgrade PDL::NetCDF became awfully slow whenwriting data, in particularly when writing small amounts of data. Reason for that is that netcdf now calls 'fsync' when nc_sync is called. Syncing the complete filesystem is very costy and I don't really understandwhy the netcdf-folks did that by default (it might make sense in some HPC filesystems - and fsync is not available from FORTRAN). It can be disabledinbuild-time, but who really does that - most people just don't use nc_sync,inparticular since 'close' does this automatically. But PDL::NetCDF calls nc_sync automatically after each put*. I would like tojust remove the nc_sync calls from PDL::NetCDF, and let users call them manually if they really need syncronisation. If you oppose to that, I wouldlike to put a flag to new: (AUTOSYNC => 0|1) (with default to 1). What do youthink? Best regards, Heiko -- Dr. Heiko Klein Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 Development Section / IT Department Fax. + 47 22 69 63 55 Norwegian Meteorological Institute http://www.met.no P.O. Box 43 Blindern 0313 Oslo NORWAY_______________________________________________ netcdfgroup mailing list netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/m ailing_lists/_______________________________________________ netcdfgroup mailing list netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
netcdfgroup archives: