NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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.
On 10/18/2014 04:39 AM, Samrat Rao wrote:
Hi Rob & Ed, I think that the machine i am using is not that bad. It was commissioned in '12. Some basic info: Performance 360 TFLOPS Peak & 304 TFLOPS sustained on LINPACK Hardware HP blade system C7000 with BL460c Gen8 blades 1088 nodes with 300 GB disk/node (319 TB) 2,176 Intel Xeon E5 2670 processors@ 2.6 GHz 17,408 processor cores, 68 TB main memory FDR Infiniband based fully non-blocking fat-tree topology 2 PB high performance storage with lustre parallel file system
OK,then let's work up the software stack.You've got a lustre file system, so you're going to need a halfway decent MPI-IO implementation. good news: OpenMPI, MPICH, and MVAPICH all have good lustre drivers. Please ensure you are running something close to the latest version. (sometimes we find users -- somehow -- running ten year old MPICH code)
You need a recent-ish HDF5 library to make full use of the MPI-IO library.You need the very latest netcdf library for assorted bug fixes (and compatibility with the latest HDF5 library)
Debugging this stack over the mailing list is a bit of a challenge. ==rob
---- Using netCDF configured for parallel applications, i did manage to write data on a single netCDF file using 512 procs --- but this was when i reduced the grid nodes per proc to about 20-30. When i made the grid nodes to about 100 i got this error too: NetCDF: HDF error ---- There is another issue i need to share --- while compiling netCDF4 for parallel usage, i had encountered errors during 'make check' in these files: run_par_test.sh, run_f77_par_test.sh and run_f90_par_test.sh These were related to mpiexec commands --- mpd.hosts issue. These errors did not occur when i compiled netcdf for parallel on my desktop. ---- Dumping outputs from each processor gave me these errors --- it is not that all such errors appear together - they are a bit random. proxy:0:13@cn0083] HYDT_bscu_wait_for_completion (./tools/bootstrap/utils/bscu_wait.c:73): one of the processes terminated badly; aborting [proxy:0:13@cn0083] HYDT_bsci_wait_for_completion (./tools/bootstrap/src/bsci_wait.c:23): launcher returned error waiting for completion [proxy:0:13@cn0083] HYD_pmci_wait_for_childs_completion (./pm/pmiserv/pmip_utils.c:1476): bootstrap server returned error waiting for completion [proxy:0:13@cn0083] main (./pm/pmiserv/pmip.c:392): error waiting for event children completion [mpiexec@cn0002] control_cb (./pm/pmiserv/pmiserv_cb.c:674): assert (!closed) failed [mpiexec@cn0002] HYDT_dmxu_poll_wait_for_event (./tools/demux/demux_poll.c:77): callback returned error status [mpiexec@cn0002] HYD_pmci_wait_for_completion (./pm/pmiserv/pmiserv_pmci.c:388): error waiting for event [mpiexec@cn0002] main (./ui/mpich/mpiexec.c:718): process manager error waiting for completion cn0137:b279:beba2700: 132021042 us(132021042 us!!!): ACCEPT_RTU: rcv ERR, rcnt=0 op=1 <- 10.1.1.136 cn1068:48c5:4b280700: 132013538 us(132013538 us!!!): ACCEPT_RTU: rcv ERR, rcnt=-1 op=1 <- 10.1.5.47 cn1075:dba3:f8d7700: 132099675 us(132099675 us!!!): CONN_REQUEST: SOCKOPT ERR Connection refused -> 10.1.1.51 16193 - RETRYING... 5 cn1075:dba3:f8d7700: 132099826 us(151 us): CONN_REQUEST: SOCKOPT ERR Connection refused -> 10.1.1.51 16193 - RETRYING...4 cn1075:dba3:f8d7700: 132099942 us(116 us): CONN_REQUEST: SOCKOPT ERR Connection refused -> 10.1.1.51 16193 - RETRYING...3 cn1075:dba3:f8d7700: 132100049 us(107 us): CONN_REQUEST: SOCKOPT ERR Connection refused -> 10.1.1.51 16193 - RETRYING...2 cn1075:dba3:f8d7700: 132100155 us(106 us): CONN_REQUEST: SOCKOPT ERR Connection refused -> 10.1.1.51 16193 - RETRYING...1 cn1075:dba3:f8d7700: 132100172 us(17 us): dapl_evd_conn_cb() unknown event 0x0 ---- Rob, I guess i will need to look into the io methods you listed. Thanks for your time, Samrat. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Rob Latham <robl@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:robl@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: On 10/17/2014 11:25 AM, Ed Hartnett wrote: Unless things have changed since my day, it is possible to read pnetcdf files with the netCDF library. It must be built with --enable-pnetcdf and with-pnetcdf=/some/location, IIRC. Ed! In this case, Samrat Rao was using pnetcdf to create CDF-5 (giant variable) formatted files. To refresh your memory, Argonne and Northwestern developed this file format with UCARS's signoff, with the understanding that we (ANL and NWU) would never expect UCAR to add support for it unless we did the work. I took a stab at it a few years back and Wei-keng is taking a second crack at it right now. the classic file formats CDF-1 and CDF-2 are fully inter-operable between pnetcdf and netcdf. ==rob On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Samrat Rao <samrat.rao@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:samrat.rao@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:samrat.rao@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:samrat.rao@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: Hi, I'm sorry for the late reply. I have no classic/netcdf-3 datasets --- datasets are to be generated. All my codes are also new. Initially i tried with pnetcdf, wrote a few variables, but found that the format was CDF-5 which 'normal' netcdf would not read. I also need to read some bits of netcdf data in Matlab, so i thought of sticking to the usual netcdf-4 compiled for parallel io. It is also likely that i will have to share my workload with others in my group and/or leave the code for future people to work on. Does matlab read cdf-5 files? So i preferred the usual netcdf. Rob, i hope you are not annoyed. But most of the above is for another day. Currently i am stuck elsewhere. With a less no of processors, 216, the single netcdf file gets created (i create i single netcdf file for each variable), but for anything above that i get these errors: NetCDF: Bad chunk sizes. Not sure where these errors come from. Then i shifted to dumping outputs from each processor in simple binary --- this works till about 1500 processors. Above this number the code gets stuck and eventually aborts. This issue is not new. My colleague too had problems with running his code on 1500+ procs. Today i came to know that opening a large number of files (each proc writes 1 file) can overwhelm the system --- solving this requires more than rudimentary techniques of writing --- or understanding the system's inherent parameters/bottlenecks. So netcdf is probably out of bounds for now --- will try again if the simple binary write from each processor gets sorted out. Does anyone have any suggestion? Thanks, Samrat. On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Rob Latham <robl@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:robl@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:robl@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:robl@xxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: On 10/02/2014 01:24 AM, Samrat Rao wrote: Thanks for your replies. I estimate that i will be requiring approx 4000 processors and a total grid resolution of 2.5 billion for my F90 code. So i need to think/understand which is better - parallel netCDF or the 'normal' one. There are a few specific nifty features in pnetcdf that can let you get really good performance, but 'normal' netCDF is a fine choice, too. Right now I do not know how to use parallel-netCDF. It's almost as simple as replacing every 'nf' call with 'nfmpi' but you will be just fine if you stick with UCAR netCDF-4 Secondly, i hope that the netCDF-4 files created by either parallel netCDF or the 'normal' one are mutually compatible. For analysis I will be extracting data using the usual netCDF library, so in case i use parallel-netCDF then there should be no inter-compatibility issues. For truly large variables, parallel-netcdf introduced, with some consultation from the UCAR folks, a 'CDF-5' file format. You have to request it explicitly, and then in that one case you would have a pnetcdf file that netcdf tools would not understand. In all other cases, we work hard to keep pnetcdf and "classic" netcdf compatible. UCAR NetCDF has the option for an HDF5-based backend -- and in fact it's not an option if you want parallel I/O with NetCDF-4 -- is not compatible with parallel-netcdf. By now, your analysis tools surely are updated to understand the new HDF5-based backend? I suppose it's possible you've got some 6 year old analysis tool that does not understand NetCDF-4's HDF5-based file format. Parallel-netcdf would allow you to simulate with parallel i/o and produce a classic netCDF file. But I would be shocked and a little bit angry if that was actually a good reason to use parallel-netcdf in 2014. ==rob -- Rob Latham Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Lab, IL USA -- Samrat Rao Research Associate Engineering Mechanics Unit Jawaharlal Centre for Advanced Scientific Research Bangalore - 560064, India _________________________________________________ netcdfgroup mailing list netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:netcdfgroup@unidata.__ucar.edu <mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/__mailing_lists/ <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/> -- Rob Latham Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Lab, IL USA -- Samrat Rao Research Associate Engineering Mechanics Unit Jawaharlal Centre for Advanced Scientific Research Bangalore - 560064, India
-- Rob Latham Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Lab, IL USA
netcdfgroup archives: