I'm playing around with inline analysis and just realized that the new print outs are done by every processor. This could get ugly when running on 1000 cores. Is anyone opposed to me making the print out happen only on the root proc? Britton On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Cam,
I don't think this should affect speed: first off, the parameter file is usually only read once, and that is always a fast operation. Slowing it down with a few console writes shouldn't be a rate limiter. The print_stats() dives down the hierarchy, so for a dataset of any consequence speedwise, that will be the rate limiting step.
j
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
A little late, but +1. As you note, I think we need to be careful we're not pushing *too* much information to the user (as then it all looks like noise), and also make sure these lookups don't slow down the process significantly. It would be a shame to lose the speed of yt for this additional behavior.
Cameron
On 12/7/10 3:06 PM, Matthew Turk wrote:
Hi all,
Okay, it's pretty unanimous. I'll make the changes and push 'em. Thanks!
-Matt
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com
wrote:
+1
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:
These kinds of simulation parameters are good to print. I'm a solid
+1
on both of these changes. I also love print_stats, and having more data there is a good thing.
j
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com
wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to propose that we increase the verbosity of two > operations: > > 1) When a parameter file is parsed, I would like several pieces of > information output via the "INFO" level of the logging handler. This > would be the current simulation time, the dimensions of the domain, > and any cosmological parameters. > 2) When print_stats is called in the hierarchy, I would like to > include all of the cosmological parameters. > > The reason I'm bringing this up rather than just changing it is that > in the past yt has (rightly) been accused of being too verbose (in > fact, it was one of the first things Jeff said to me the first time we > met to talk about yt!) and I don't want to increase that > unnecessarily. But, I feel strongly that as we move into more codes > we need to be more upfront about what yt thinks of a given simulation > output. I think that this will also help ensure that errors are > avoided. > > +1/-1? > > -Matt > _______________________________________________ > Yt-dev mailing list > Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > _______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org