Re: NCL performance

> uname -a
Linux discette 2.6.18-194.11.3.el5PAE #1 SMP Mon Aug 30 17:02:48 EDT
2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

What I did was to install the two versions (below) at the same location,
and doing the same command-line (same input and output paths) using the
same script. I added "time" in front the command-line. Results below.
Let me know if you need more info. Thanks.

-Fan

ncl_ncarg-5.2.1.Linux_RedHat_i686_nodap_gcc412.tar.gz:
172.341u 1.212s 2:54.65 99.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

ncl_ncarg-5.1.1.Linux_i686_gcc412.tar.gz:
50.035u 0.579s 0:50.87 99.4% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

Dennis Shea wrote:
> There should be no performance difference.
> All 5.2.1 updates are listed at:
> http://www.ncl.ucar.edu/current_release.shtml
>
> [1] If your files are on a NFS mounted file system, perhaps the
> network was having issues.
>
> [2] Whenever, you post a comment or question like this one,
> please include the output from
>
> %> uname -a
>
> THX
>
> On 11/29/10 9:12 AM, Fan Fang wrote:
>
>> With NCL 5.2.1, we noticed a factor of ~3 reduction in performance with
>> a x-y plot script. Our previous (and better performed) NCL version was
>> 5.1.1. Is this expected?
>>
>> The script is plotting time series. There are quite a bit array
>> manipulations in script. We haven't yet compared other scripts.
>>
>> -Fan
>> _______________________________________________
>> ncl-talk mailing list
>> List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
>> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk
>>

_______________________________________________
ncl-talk mailing list
List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk
Received on Mon Nov 29 11:55:31 2010