Alright, I'm on board. Next step is some determination of the padding. I think this likely should be done in terms of root grid dimensions; it seems we've had some good success with low integer multiples of (DomainRightEdge-DomainLeftEdge)/RootGridDimensions . As I recall, you said 0.02 was sufficient for your 64^3 run? Or am I misremembering? On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Stephen Skory <stephenskory@yahoo.com> wrote:
Okay, so we're looking at one particle different in the most massive halo, two in one of the less massive ones between 4 & 2 processors. What do the rest of you think? I am torn between being anal about this and just saying that's not a big deal.
One or two parts in 260,000 is pretty darn good. So I am inclined to say it's not a big deal.
I've been bouncing ideas around in my head as to why I think this kind of variance is unavoidable. If you take a perverse situation where there is only one particle in a subbox, clearly determining its overdensity is ridiculous. But this says for subboxes with more reasonable numbers of particles, the overdensity is not as determined as for the whole box. I think subdividing the whole introduces error.
Uh, I dunno, at any rate I think we're at the point of diminishing returns.
_______________________________________________________ sskory@physics.ucsd.edu o__ Stephen Skory http://physics.ucsd.edu/~sskory/ _.>/ _Graduate Student ________________________________(_)_\(_)_______________ _______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org