Adrian Croucher <[email protected]> writes: > hi Jed, > > It looked to me like a call to h5f_flush() is all that is required. > > Some people said there would be a performance hit (maybe ~ 10% slower), > which would be the trade-off for increased reliability. So if this were > made available via PetscViewerFlush(), I'd probably make it optional in > my code so the user could decide for themselves if it was worth it for them. > > Do you think flushing would be a better option than closing/opening the > file between writes?
Yes, less costly at scale (metadata like opening files can be expensive on parallel file systems), and simpler to manage from your code.
