WRF-Fire merge testing

Please see Talk:WRF-Fire_merge_testing for permanent notes.

The basics

The version to test is branch fuel-moisture-model currently at commit c1cedfc7eba28a2ed

The baseline is WRF4 branch develop currently at commit 0f296f9c0f674f9

When either branch advances we have to retest - after any fix in fuel-moisture-model, and, after we are done, we will have to forward branch develop to current WRF4 and merge it into fuel-moisture-model. For this reason (and to reduce confusion), I am trying to organize the tests in a way that they are really easy to rerun without modifying any files - separate clones for different compilation options and separate copies of test/em_fire directory for different test cases.

The namelist.input and namelist.fire with variables that turn the fuel moisture model and fire on are in test/em_fire_rain/rain. The description of the namelist variables is at Fuel_moisture_model#Configuration. Other features from WRF-SFIRE are not carried over - only the fuel moisture model.

Who is doing what

• Angel - WTF, parallel testing of both branches for identical results, all test cases in test/em_fire
• Adam - a real problem
• Jan - fixing, selected testing as needed

How to test

• Record also unsuccessful tests, when fixed, replace by the final result and include link to the commit used
• All tests should be reproducible by checking out the commit noted, which should include all data for ideal runs
• For real runs, please link to the datasets to be reproducible

What needs to be tested

• Fuel moisture model off vs. WRF4 baseline, with and without fire, did we change anything?
• reading fmc_g, is it doing what it should?
• Fuel moisture model on, fire on, is it doing what it should?
• Serial and parallel execution with different numbers of CPUs, are the numbers same?
• WTF as specified in WRF testing requirements
• All ideal cases in test/em_fire and some real

Jan's test results

All kingspeak runs are in /uufs/chpc.utah.edu/common/home/u6015690/merge and run on node kingspeak11 (nodes can be different).

Baseline

branch develop 0f296f9c0f674f9

• ifort serial (13), nesting 0, configure -d, WRF-Fire-merge-develop/test/em_fire/

Using fmc_g

• ifort serial (13), nesting 0, configure -d, WRF-Fire-merge-fuel-moisture-model/test/em_fire/ branch fuel-moisture-model c1cedfc7eba28a2ed namelist.input -> namelist.input_hill_simple:

Fuel moisture model

branch fuel-moisture-model, copies of test/em_fire as em_fire_xxxx

• ifort serial (13), nesting 1, configure -d, WRF-Fire-merge-fuel-moisture-model-jm branch fuel-moisture-model-jm 21e4b028d80723ca
  • em_fire_orig (no change)
  • em_fire_fmc/fmc
  • em_fire_rain/rain commit 8b3acf710816d8e10 no change for 1,2,3,4,6 cpus

Angel's test results

All kingspeak runs are in /uufs/chpc.utah.edu/common/home/kochanski-group3/farguella/merge.

Branch develop vs. added-fmc_g

The branch develop and branch added-fmc_g are in kingspeak in folders WRF-Fire-merge-develop and WRF-Fire-merge-added-fmc_g respectively. They are tested in order to see the first new functionalities of adding variable FMC_G in WRF4 baseline. Tests are from list in https://www.openwfm.org/index.php?title=Porting_WRF-SFIRE_fuel_moisture_model_to_WRF4#Testing_to_be_done.

All the runs are on node kingspeak11 and kinspeak12 and all the compilations are done using ifort serial (13), nesting 0.

fire_fmc_read not present in namelist.input

One can observe that both simple hill simulations are exactly the same running

diff WRF-Fire-merge-develop/test/em_fire/wrf.log WRF-Fire-merge-added-fmc_g/test/em_fire/hill_tests/original/wrf.log -I Timing

which returns

10c10
<    alloc_space_field: domain            1 ,              344571608  bytes allocated
---
>    alloc_space_field: domain            1 ,              345388824  bytes allocated

Therefore, the only difference is in the allocation size as expected.

However, the new branch added-fmc_g is creating new variable FMC_G taken constant value of fuelmc_g from namelist.fire all over the domain. Changing value of fuelmc_g in namelist.fire changes the value of the new variable FMC_G.

fire_fmc_read present in namelist.input

Setting

fire_fmc_read=0

and poblating FMC_G variable in wrfinput_d01 using ncreplace in Matlab. The branch added-fmc_g uses the new FMC_G in the simulation from new wrfinputs. Tested using:

• Constant FMC_G field of 0.07: WRF-Fire-merge-added-fmc_g/test/em_fire/hill_tests/fmc_07.

• Constant FMC_G field of 0.08: WRF-Fire-merge-added-fmc_g/test/em_fire/hill_tests/fmc_08. Exactly the same results that branch develop which was taking the information from namelist.fire file.

• Random FMC_G field: WRF-Fire-merge-added-fmc_g/test/em_fire/hill_tests/fmc_rand. Gives the progression with random bumps as expected.

• Slope FMC_G field: RF-Fire-merge-added-fmc_g/test/em_fire/hill_tests/fmc_slope.

Branch develop vs. fuel-moisture-model without fuel moisture

The experiments tested are hill_simple and two_fires ideal cases. In the branch fuel-moisture-model, the fuel moisture model is turned off and we want to obtain exactly the same results than using branch develop.

The branch develop and branch fuel-moisture-model are compiled and runned in Cheyenne in folders /gpfs/fs1/p/univ/ucud0004/angelfc/merge/develop* and /gpfs/fs1/p/univ/ucud0004/angelfc/merge/fuel-moiture-model* respectively.

All the simulations are done in folders test/em_fire/hill_simple and test/em_fire/two_fires.

Intel

• Serial executions: develop-intel-serial and fuel-moisture-model-intel-serial. They are compiled using configure option: ifort compiler with icc serial (13), nesting 0. Both hill simple and two fires cases give exactly the same results.

• OpenMP executions: develop-intel-openmp and fuel-moisture-model-intel-openmp. They are compiled using configure option: ifort compiler with icc dmpar (14), nesting 0.

• MPI executions: develop-intel-mpi and fuel-moisture-model-intel-mpi. They are compiled using configure option: ifort compiler with icc dmpar (15), nesting 1. In both ideal cases hill simple and two fires, same results in variables U, V, and TIGN_G from wrfouts. Using 1, 2, 4 and 8 MPI processes.

• Hybrid executions: develop-intel-hybrid and fuel-moisture-model-intel-hybrid. They are compiled using configure option: ifort compiler with icc dmpar (16), nesting 1. All the executions crash because of memory corruption.

WRF in fuel-moisture-model branch

In order to test WRF in the new branch fuel-moisture-model, the WTF is used.

Running WTF in Cheyenne

The new WTF code is updated to work on Cheyenne and using run_from_github.py. New update is in:

git clone https://github.com/openwfm/WTF

After that, one can change to the correct branch using

git checkout angelfc

Then one can just run run_from_github.py python execution doing:

./run_from_github.py

One needs to give also the github repository to test and the branch which are going to be:

URL of the repository: https://github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge
branch: master

and

URL of the repository: https://github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge
branch: develop

and

URL of the repository: https://github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge
branch: fuel-moisture-model

All these executions are run in order to compare the three different results.

See also

• How to build WRF4
• Fuel_moisture_model#Configuration Fuel moisture model Configuration
• WRF testing requirements
• Information for WRF contributors (outdated but still relevant)
• Comments in e26f21fb33 Fri Mar 9 11:07:01 2018 Cumulative fire commit for v4.0
• https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/wiki/Making-a-good-pull-request-message
• https://github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE
• https://www2.cisl.ucar.edu/resources/computational-systems/cheyenne/running-jobs/submitting-jobs-pbs/process-binding
• https://www2.cisl.ucar.edu/resources/computational-systems/cheyenne/running-jobs/submitting-jobs-pbs