yantosca
commented
5 years ago I think it’s ok to use the same AMI for both GCC and GCHP for now.
KThe new MAPL might not be ready for a while. We might have to build a new AMI once the new MAPL is ready, due to other software requirements.
If we can get people using GCC and GCHP in the cloud ASAP, then that’s huge!
Users can start with an AMI and git pull newer updates (e.g patches) as the model evolves.
Bob Y.
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
From: Jiawei Zhuang notifications@github.com Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 6:05 PM To: geoschem/geos-chem-cloud Cc: Yantosca, Robert M.; Mention Subject: [geoschem/geos-chem-cloud] Use the same AMI for GC-classic and GCHP? (#18)
Thanks to the fixes in geoschem/gchp#6https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_geoschem_gchp_issues_6&d=DwMCaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=XTJBopAzwSsAgEljIk6g1TdJEZxb_bVLEjVNpBxfBIw&m=jXOOdp5GNdqUQNRM4eN9nhJ2GBeh5xXFrMjNlj6Msh4&s=r4L-GKpPwNdkKJVsvHMxhwfWSKyk_G4CfjPjWOHcJEo&e=, now GCHP can run correctly in the same software environment as GC-classic (Ubuntu 18.04, gcc 7.3.0, netCDF 4.6.0. The only addition is OpenMPI3). I see no reason of maintaining two separate AMIs, where there the software libraries largely duplicate. This also avoids duplicating ~100 GB of minimum input data.
Users can test GCHP immediately after playing with GC-classic on the cloud. Seems a great education opportunity for users.
My only concern is that GCHP might lag behind GC-classic's version. For example, when the new version of MAPL is implemented, it is not clear how much work it would take to make it run properly on the cloud.
If there're no objections I will use the same AMI for both. @yantoscahttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_yantosca&d=DwMCaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=XTJBopAzwSsAgEljIk6g1TdJEZxb_bVLEjVNpBxfBIw&m=jXOOdp5GNdqUQNRM4eN9nhJ2GBeh5xXFrMjNlj6Msh4&s=fDSAR0q31Z-LriikkV5KgtXLA3bPBd7o-_8Q0q0ufHU&e= @lizzielhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_lizziel&d=DwMCaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=XTJBopAzwSsAgEljIk6g1TdJEZxb_bVLEjVNpBxfBIw&m=jXOOdp5GNdqUQNRM4eN9nhJ2GBeh5xXFrMjNlj6Msh4&s=F5-LU6TVUOmDy-_ZbEpw2v1ImtUdnzqoFBgWtIRfq5U&e= @msulpriziohttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_msulprizio&d=DwMCaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=XTJBopAzwSsAgEljIk6g1TdJEZxb_bVLEjVNpBxfBIw&m=jXOOdp5GNdqUQNRM4eN9nhJ2GBeh5xXFrMjNlj6Msh4&s=vqctgX_sOp-435FdE0D8JNlg27RLRLNkcqtWLZ-qGhQ&e=
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_geoschem_geos-2Dchem-2Dcloud_issues_18&d=DwMCaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=XTJBopAzwSsAgEljIk6g1TdJEZxb_bVLEjVNpBxfBIw&m=jXOOdp5GNdqUQNRM4eN9nhJ2GBeh5xXFrMjNlj6Msh4&s=2ZVY4rNvTDMCpXI7lLWaTkfPdZ6onSYXNXUwDvGxgc8&e=, or mute the threadhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AFm56Boed4sbchOUSh0fzNHFW46xkS4Vks5u5C7OgaJpZM4ZUZtp&d=DwMCaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=XTJBopAzwSsAgEljIk6g1TdJEZxb_bVLEjVNpBxfBIw&m=jXOOdp5GNdqUQNRM4eN9nhJ2GBeh5xXFrMjNlj6Msh4&s=UZuVQFCnu15jYTGssSl3z3MMETCt5m-y6RytUPwqDvk&e=.
lizziel
JiaweiZhuang
Thanks to the fixes in geoschem/gchp#6, now GCHP can run correctly in the same software environment as GC-classic (Ubuntu 18.04, gcc 7.3.0, netCDF 4.6.0. The only addition is OpenMPI3). I see no reason of maintaining two separate AMIs, where the software libraries largely duplicate. This also avoids duplicating ~100 GB of minimum input data.
Users can test GCHP immediately after playing with GC-classic on the cloud. Seems a great education opportunity for users.
My only concern is that GCHP might lag behind GC-classic's version. For example, when the new version of MAPL is implemented, it is not clear how much work it would take to make it run properly on the cloud.
If there're no objections I will use the same AMI for both. @yantosca @lizziel @msulprizio