NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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.
Hi Brice, Some general comments: It is hard for me to comment in any detail without being able to see and compare the netCDF files created on your 32-bit and 64-bit systems. Off of the top of my head, I would say that there can be differences in files created on the two systems, but I really need to talk to the netCDF folks here to make sure. Second, I have always viewed the netCDF ADDE servers with some suspicion. I came to this feeling quite some time ago while code diving while trying to troubleshoot a problem I was experiencing. I have not looked at the code in a LONG time, so things may have changed since that one experience. Just so I understand what you are seeing: are you saying that you can use the McIDAS ADDE netCDF server for netCDF file(s) generated on 32-bit systems, but you can not use the file(s) generated on 64-bit systems? If the answer is yes, perhaps the difference is that the netCDF files generated on the 64-bit system have large file support built-in while those created on the 32-bit system do not. If this is the case, it means that the netCDF library built/used in McIDAS would need to be built with large file support in order to handle the file(s) created on the 64-bit system. re: > We got around to coming back to this issue and ran smack into a brick wall. > Worse it's toward the end of another big project and this function is a key > piece, so now I'm on the hook. Looking for information more than actual > code digging. A new piece of information that surfaced was that when we > generated netCDF files from the same BUFR point files on the 32 and 64-bit > machines and ran ncdump on them, a comparison of the ncdump output showed > only some rounding differences with the exception of the header info. > Ncdump had no problems displaying all of the data in the files. What I > would like from you is validation (or not) of my perception that this > information shows we are creating the netCDF files correctly on the 64-bit > system, but that ncdfks is having issues. We found that the 'hacked' > version of ncdfks was not required to read the files on the 32-bit systems; > we are using the McIDAS core ncdfks. If this theory is correct, and SSEC > tells me they have almost no one with any netCDF experience any more at > least with the older McIDAS-X platforms so it's possible, then I can leave > the transition software alone and focus on the server solution or > eliminating the netCDF part completely and dumping it to some other > structure. > > Am I missing something here, do you think? BTW we did make sure of all the > linking issues before this. The only thing that comes to mind that "feels sorta right" is the issue with large file support. I could be completely off base, of course; getting a couple of files created from the same data on the different platforms should go a long way towards affirming/negating my musing. Cheers, Tom -- **************************************************************************** Unidata User Support UCAR Unidata Program (303) 497-8642 P.O. Box 3000 address@hidden Boulder, CO 80307 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unidata HomePage http://www.unidata.ucar.edu **************************************************************************** Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ABG-678484 Department: Support McIDAS Priority: Normal Status: Open