On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Benjamin Kirk wrote:
>> On the other hand, it would be better if we could make the default
>> behavior more user-friendly. Instead of testing for the presence of a
>> --read_legacy command line switch, why can't we test for the absense
>> of that new version line at the begin
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Benjamin Kirk wrote:
> If you are willing to give up M->N restart, though, it would only take 5
> lines to add an option for each processor to write its data into
> 'foo.xda.pid' with all the header information put in 'foo.xda'.
You know, we wouldn't necessarily have to give
> On the other hand, it would be better if we could make the default
> behavior more user-friendly. Instead of testing for the presence of a
> --read_legacy command line switch, why can't we test for the absense
> of that new version line at the beginning of the file?
Probably do-able...
>
> Ot
> Very cool work
>
> I'm still waiting for parallel IO as well... ;-)
Roy is right -- I started with the most complex format I could think of and
will incrementally add more capability. What I added now serializes through
processor 0 but alleviates the serial 'stitching' program required for
Very cool work
I'm still waiting for parallel IO as well... ;-)
Derek
On Nov 30, 2007 2:56 PM, Benjamin Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> **please read if you want to be able to read your existing restart files!**
>
> ...are now supported. It is not required to serialize the mesh to write a
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Benjamin Kirk wrote:
> **please read if you want to be able to read your existing restart files!**
This line should probably be repeated with more boldface, caps, and
exclamation points.
On the other hand, it would be better if we could make the default
behavior more user-fr
