CCLM compiled with IntelMPI – in #9: CCLM

in #9: CCLM

Hi Andrew,

correct. I used COMSO_5.0.
I reported on these tests during the Assembly in Luxmebourg.
My recommendation was to use the BULL-MPI since it was somewhat faster than the INTEL-MPI, especially when using larger number of nodes (> 25 to 30).
Nevertheless, INTEL - MPI worked.

Of course, in the meantime I also applied cosmo_4.8_clm17/19 on MISTRAL (sucessfully), but only with BULL - MPI (I myself decided to stick on BULL - MPI ).

Hans-Jürgen

  @hans-jürgenpanitz in #ec59b61

Hi Andrew,

correct. I used COMSO_5.0.
I reported on these tests during the Assembly in Luxmebourg.
My recommendation was to use the BULL-MPI since it was somewhat faster than the INTEL-MPI, especially when using larger number of nodes (> 25 to 30).
Nevertheless, INTEL - MPI worked.

Of course, in the meantime I also applied cosmo_4.8_clm17/19 on MISTRAL (sucessfully), but only with BULL - MPI (I myself decided to stick on BULL - MPI ).

Hans-Jürgen

HP replied

Hi Andrew,

correct. I used COMSO_5.0.
I reported on these tests during the Assembly in Luxmebourg.
My recommendation was to use the BULL-MPI since it was somewhat faster than the INTEL-MPI, especially when using larger number of nodes (> 25 to 30).
Nevertheless, INTEL - MPI worked.

Of course, in the meantime I also applied cosmo_4.8_clm17/19 on MISTRAL (sucessfully), but only with BULL - MPI (I myself decided to stick on BULL - MPI ).

Hans-Jürgen

View in channel