Hi Frank, Erik, and Roland. Thanks for your tips. After many hours of looking into this problem, and even trying (unsuccessfully) to use Carpet macros, I conclude that I am being held back by a bug in Cactus scheduling.
I have created a very simple thorn called ScheduleTester that demonstrates what I believe to be a bug in Cactus scheduling. Since it is 100% reproducible using this thorn, I have created a bug report (ET Trac #1778) with the thorn attached. I have also attached the thorn to this email. Inside the tarball, you'll find the 2015_05 ET release ThornList, with this thorn included, as well as a .par file in the par/ directory that will reproduce the bug. Thanks in advance for helping to take a look at this thorn, and have a great weekend! -Zach * * * Zachariah Etienne Assistant Professor of Mathematics West Virginia University On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Frank Loeffler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 02:27:48PM -0500, Frank Loeffler wrote: > > We had a similar issue, and as Roland described it is not that simple. > > In our case we could work around the issue (of either having to put this > > into C++ code, or having a messy ccl file) but moving all of the calls > > to ANALYSIS, and putting the two calls for each quantity (local > > computation followed by reduction) into a separate group. However, I > > seem to remember (without looking this up now), that this only works in > > the ANALYSIS cactus bin. Yes, this is unfortunate. > > I forgot to mention that one other requirement we had was that we wanted > to reuse the temporary variables needed for the reductions. So, first > doing all local computations and then reducing all of them wouldn't > work. Some of that might have been the reason to move to ANALYSIS too, I > don't remember. > > Frank >
ScheduleTester.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
