WRF Software Testing The testing conducted on the WRF code to insure bit-for-bit behavior on differing processor counts runs through hundreds of short forecasts in about 30 minutes. These simulations are very short (about 10 time steps). The purpose is to activate as many possible physics options. If single processor vs multiple processor results differ, then there is a strong likelihood that improper initialization of variables or missing communications or race conditions exist. While tracking down the root cause of the problem is extremely time consuming, physics options that exhibit clean bit-wise reproducible results are more likely to be robust. This testing is handled entirely with a newly developed mechanism designed to run on small desktops, or with additional scripting on distributed cluster systems. See https://github.com/davegill/wrf-coop/blob/master/README_user.md =========================== WRF Test Framework =========================== 1. Overview The WRF Testing Framework is designed to build, test, and analyze test results for one or more versions of the WRF model. This is a docker containerized solution that is utilized for interactive testing and is also part of the WRF automated jenkins testing. COMPILERS: GNU fortran versions 8 and 9. PARALLEL BUILD CONFIGURATIONS: Serial (single-processor) build OpenMP (multithreaded, shared memory) build MPI (multiprocessor, distributed memory) build WRF COMPILE-TIME VARIATIONS ARW ARW real*8 ARW Nested ARW Moving Nest NMM HWRF CHEM Idealized Fire Idealized Super Cell Idealized Super Cell real*8 Idealized Baroclinc Wave Idealized 2D Hill Idealized Single Column Model ARW em_real RUN-TIME VARIATIONS Adaptive Time Stepping Digital Filtering FDDA: Spectral nudging, obs nudging, surface and upper air nudging Stochastic Forcing Nesting Vertical Nesting Hybrid and Terrain Following Vertical Coordinates Dry and Moist Potential Temperature 2. Physics Options Applied in WRF Tests The following Table and associated table Key summarizes the combinations of physics options that are tested for WRF. It is important to note that while the choice of one physics option should not influence the choice of another physics option (i.e., the choice of a microphysics scheme should be independent of the cumulus scheme choice), in practice certain options are developed and tested for a small subset of other physics option combinations. Therefore, the following table is useful as a guide for combinations of WRF physics options that are known to provide bit-for-bit results between serial and MPI versions of WRF. Each row in the table represents a specific test, and each column a specific physics option. Each of the physics combinations listed in the tables can be considered a "safe" combination that will provide successful short-term forecasts with bit-for-bit results when comparing single-processor output against multi-processor output. KEY 1: Column Labels (Tables 1-7) ---------------------------------------- NL => Test Namelist Identifier PBL => Planetary Boundary Layer Scheme CU => Cumulus Scheme MP => Microphysics Scheme LW => Longwave Radiation Scheme SW => Shortwave Radiation Scheme SFC => Surface Physics Scheme LAND => Land Surface Scheme URB => Urban Physics Scheme SHCU => Shallow Cumulus Scheme TOPO => Topography-Following Wind Scheme ---------------------------------------- KEY 2: Test Namelist Codes (Tables 1-7) ---------------------------------------- AD => Adaptive Time Stepping DF => Digital Filtering FD => FDDA NE => Basic Nesting VN => Vertical Nesting ---------------------------------------- TABLE 1: WRF ARW Tests, Providing Successful 10 Time Step Forecasts, and Bit-for-Bit Results for Serial vs. MPI Runs and Serial vs. OpenMP Runs NL MP CU LW SW PBL SFC LSM URB 3dtke D D D D D 1 D 0 conus D D D D D D D 0 rap 28 3 4 4 5 5 3 0 tropical D D D D D D D 0 03 3 3 24 24 4 4 1 0 03DF 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 0 03FD 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 0 06 6 6 24 24 8 2 1 0 07NE 8 14 5 5 8 1 2 2 10 10 2 1 2 4 4 7 0 11 10 2 1 2 4 4 7 0 14 3 6 3 3 4 4 3 0 16 8 14 5 5 9 2 7 0 16DF 8 14 5 5 9 2 7 0 17 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 0 17AD 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 0 18 8 6 5 5 10 10 7 0 20 4 1 1 2 12 1 2 0 20NE 4 1 1 2 12 1 2 0 38 2 14 4 4 2 2 7 0 48 3 3 24 24 4 4 1 0 49 3 1 24 24 1 91 2 0 50 3 1 24 24 1 91 4 0 51 3 1 24 24 1 91 4 0 52 17 3 24 24 4 4 1 0 52DF 17 3 4 4 4 4 1 0 52FD 17 3 4 4 4 4 1 0 60 6 11 24 24 1 1 4 0 60NE 6 11 4 4 1 1 4 0 65DF 28 7 4 4 9 2 3 0 66FD 3 1 4 4 4 4 1 0 71 8 1 4 4 1 1 2 0 78 52 1 4 4 1 1 2 0 79 2 14 4 4 5 2 7 0 cmt 6 11 4 4 1 1 2 0 kiaps1NE 16 14 14 14 11 1 4 0 kiaps2 16 14 14 14 1 91 4 1 solaraNE 8 1 4 4 5 5 2 3 NL MP CU LW SW PBL SFC LSM URB TABLE 2: WRF ARW Tests, Providing Successful 10 Time Step Forecasts, and Bit-for-Bit Results for Serial vs. MPI Runs and Serial vs. OpenMP Runs REAL*8 NL PBL CU MP LW SW SFC LAND URB SHCU TOPO 14 4 6 3 3 3 4 3 0 0 0 17AD 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 NL PBL CU MP LW SW SFC LAND URB SHCU TOPO TABLE 3: WRF Idealized Supercell Tests, Providing Successful 10 Time Step Forecasts, and Bit-for-Bit Results for Serial vs. MPI Runs and Serial vs. OpenMP Runs NL PBL CU MP LW SW SFC 02NE 0 0 1 0 0 1 03 0 0 1 0 0 1 03NE 0 0 1 0 0 1 04 0 0 2 0 0 1 NL PBL CU MP LW SW SFC TABLE 4: WRF Idealized B-Wave Tests, Providing Successful 10 Time Step Forecasts, and Bit-for-Bit Results for Serial vs. MPI Runs and Serial vs. OpenMP Runs NL PBL CU MP LW SW SFC 1NE 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2NE 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 NL PBL CU MP LW SW SFC