Difference between revisions of "WRF-Fire merge testing"
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
==Angel's test results== | ==Angel's test results== | ||
− | All kingspeak runs are in /uufs/chpc.utah.edu/common/home/kochanski-group3/farguella/merge | + | All kingspeak runs are in /uufs/chpc.utah.edu/common/home/kochanski-group3/farguella/merge. |
===Branch develop vs. added-fmc_g=== | ===Branch develop vs. added-fmc_g=== | ||
+ | |||
The {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|develop}} and {{wrf-fire-merge-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. | The {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|develop}} and {{wrf-fire-merge-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==== | ====fire_fmc_read not present in namelist.input==== | ||
Line 87: | Line 90: | ||
* Slope FMC_G field: RF-Fire-merge-added-fmc_g/test/em_fire/hill_tests/fmc_slope. | * 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 {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|develop}} and {{wrf-fire-merge-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. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Parallel executions: develop-intel-mpi and fuel-moisture-model-intel-mpi. | ||
+ | |||
+ | They are compiled using configure option: ifort compiler with icc dmpar (15), nesting 1. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====PGI==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ====GNU==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===WRF in fuel-moisture-model branch=== | ||
+ | In order to test WRF in the new {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|fuel-moisture-model}}, the WTF is used. Therefore, the new WTF code is downloaded using | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | wget http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/src/wtf_v04.09_small.tar | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | After that, the tar file is uncompressed using | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | tar -xvf wtf_v04.09_small.tar | ||
+ | cd WTF_v04.09 | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | Once one try to use ./run_from_github.py python execution, an error appear which says that Data folder is old. So, the new Data folder is downloaded using | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | cd .. | ||
+ | wget http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/tmp/data_v04.08.tar | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | After that, the new data is uncompressed and replaced using | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | tar -xvf data_v04.08.tar | ||
+ | rm -fr WTF_v04.09/Data | ||
+ | mv Data WTF_v04.09 | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | Then, the new version of the data is updated in line 42 of run_from_github.py file as | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | version="v04.08" | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | It is also needed to provide the account code to run the qsub in file qsub_this_to_run_all_compiler.csh. In our case, it should be | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | #PBS -A UCUD0004 | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | Finally, one can run the code doing | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | ./run_from_github.py | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | One needs to give also the github repository to test and the branch which are going to be: | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | URL of the repository: https://github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge | ||
+ | branch: fuel-moisture-model | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
==Adam's test results== | ==Adam's test results== |
Revision as of 20:20, 7 February 2019
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.
- Parallel executions: develop-intel-mpi and fuel-moisture-model-intel-mpi.
They are compiled using configure option: ifort compiler with icc dmpar (15), nesting 1.
PGI
GNU
WRF in fuel-moisture-model branch
In order to test WRF in the new branch fuel-moisture-model, the WTF is used. Therefore, the new WTF code is downloaded using
wget http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/src/wtf_v04.09_small.tar
After that, the tar file is uncompressed using
tar -xvf wtf_v04.09_small.tar cd WTF_v04.09
Once one try to use ./run_from_github.py python execution, an error appear which says that Data folder is old. So, the new Data folder is downloaded using
cd .. wget http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/tmp/data_v04.08.tar
After that, the new data is uncompressed and replaced using
tar -xvf data_v04.08.tar rm -fr WTF_v04.09/Data mv Data WTF_v04.09
Then, the new version of the data is updated in line 42 of run_from_github.py file as
version="v04.08"
It is also needed to provide the account code to run the qsub in file qsub_this_to_run_all_compiler.csh. In our case, it should be
#PBS -A UCUD0004
Finally, one can run the code 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: fuel-moisture-model
Adam's test 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