-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Use the same AMI for GC-classic and GCHP? #18
Labels
environment
Relating to AMI or Unix environment
Comments
Given that GCHP+gfortran is kind of buggy currently (#geoschem/GCHP#15), maybe take GCHP down after the bug is fixed / after we actually use gfortran for benchmark? Or, I can just put it here purely for educational purpose but not scientific analysis. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Thanks to the fixes in geoschem/GCHP#6, now GCHP can run correctly in the same software environment as GC-classic (Ubuntu 18.04, gcc 7.3.0, netCDF 4.6.0. The only addition is OpenMPI3). I see no reason of maintaining two separate AMIs, where the software libraries largely duplicate. This also avoids duplicating ~100 GB of minimum input data.
Users can test GCHP immediately after playing with GC-classic on the cloud. Seems a great education opportunity for users.
My only concern is that GCHP might lag behind GC-classic's version. For example, when the new version of MAPL is implemented, it is not clear how much work it would take to make it run properly on the cloud.
If there're no objections I will use the same AMI for both.
@yantosca @lizziel @msulprizio
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: