CCLM compiled with IntelMPI – in #9: CCLM

in #9: CCLM

<p> Hi Andrew, </p> <p> correct. I used COMSO_5.0. <br/> I reported on these tests during the Assembly in Luxmebourg. <br/> My recommendation was to use the BULL-MPI since it was somewhat faster than the INTEL-MPI, especially when using larger number of nodes (&gt; 25 to 30). <br/> Nevertheless, <span class="caps"> INTEL </span> - <span class="caps"> MPI </span> worked. </p> <p> Of course, in the meantime I also applied cosmo_4.8_clm17/19 on <span class="caps"> MISTRAL </span> (sucessfully), but only with <span class="caps"> BULL </span> - <span class="caps"> MPI </span> (I myself decided to stick on <span class="caps"> BULL </span> - <span class="caps"> MPI </span> ). </p> <p> Hans-Jürgen </p>

  @hans-jürgenpanitz in #ec59b61

<p> Hi Andrew, </p> <p> correct. I used COMSO_5.0. <br/> I reported on these tests during the Assembly in Luxmebourg. <br/> My recommendation was to use the BULL-MPI since it was somewhat faster than the INTEL-MPI, especially when using larger number of nodes (&gt; 25 to 30). <br/> Nevertheless, <span class="caps"> INTEL </span> - <span class="caps"> MPI </span> worked. </p> <p> Of course, in the meantime I also applied cosmo_4.8_clm17/19 on <span class="caps"> MISTRAL </span> (sucessfully), but only with <span class="caps"> BULL </span> - <span class="caps"> MPI </span> (I myself decided to stick on <span class="caps"> BULL </span> - <span class="caps"> MPI </span> ). </p> <p> Hans-Jürgen </p>
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