Compact Modeling Framework v3.0 for high-resolution global ocean–ice–atmosphere models

Kalmykov, Vladimir V.; Ibrayev, Rashit A.; Kaurkin, Maxim N.; Ushakov, Konstantin V.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3983-2018

Articles | Volume 11, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3983-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3983-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 10

Development and technical paper

|

01 Oct 2018

Development and technical paper |

| 01 Oct 2018

Compact Modeling Framework v3.0 for high-resolution global ocean–ice–atmosphere models

Vladimir V. Kalmykov, Rashit A. Ibrayev, Maxim N. Kaurkin, and Konstantin V. Ushakov

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Oct 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Jan 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Kalmykov et al gmd-2017-294', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Mar 2018
- AC4: 'Author responses to Reviewer 1 comments', Maxim Kaurkin, 26 Jun 2018
RC2: 'Referee #2 ' s comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Apr 2018
- AC2: 'Author responses to Reviewer 2 comments', Maxim Kaurkin, 26 Jun 2018
AC1: 'Author responses to Reviewer 1 comments', Maxim Kaurkin, 26 Jun 2018
AC3: 'Vortex-Investigating Terra Integrated Model VITIM 3.1.1 user guide', Maxim Kaurkin, 26 Jun 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Maxim Kaurkin on behalf of the Authors (11 Jul 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (13 Jul 2018) by Steve Easterbrook

RR by Sophie Valcke (25 Jul 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

2nd review of
“Compact Modeling Framework v3.0 for high-resolution global ocean-ice-atmosphere models”
by Kalmykov et al

I would like to thank the author for this revised version of the manuscript that carefully takes into account and replies to almost all remarks made during the first round of review. I think it now deserves publication in GMD after considering the following minor revisions:
• P.3 L.29 : I still think that it is not appropriate and confusing to write that OASIS3-MCT coupling library has a non-coupler design. You could simply state “Unquestionable advantage of the OASIS (OASIS3, OASIS4 and OASIS3-MCT) design …” ; or at least use “… no-standalone-coupler design …”
• P.3, L.30-33: OASIS3-MCT primary function is coupling not I/O; it is a bit unfair to turn down OASIS3-MCT because of its non-optimal I/O system. Sentences like “But still the system contains master-process I/O routines, which obviously limit its use for large grids” and “Nevertheless, such behaviour could be fully acceptable for runs with non-intensive mapping and I/O” are confusing because of course OASIS3-MCT use is not limited for coupling or mapping of large grids. Can you rephrase these sentences taking this remark into account?
• P.4, L.1: In your reply, you write that you have changed the “According to proposals of the Earth System Modeling conference …”, but you have not. The mentioned workshop was not named like that. Please change for “According to the analysis of the coupling technologies for Earth System Modeling workshop (Valcke et al., 2012)…”
• P.4, L.13 and in the abstract: what is precisely the meaning of “abstract” in “high-level abstract driver”? I would say that if a high-level driver in implemented in CMF2.0 (similar to the CESM driver) it is not abstract at all. Please modify or clarify.
• P.6, L.8: Please add “During the run” before “The data intended for mapping is sent …”
• P.6, L. 33-34: change “which corresponds to 240 × 9 atmosphere-ocean mappings and 120 × 3 ocean-atmosphere mappings” for “which corresponds to 120 × 3 ocean-atmosphere mappings and 240 × 9 atmosphere-ocean mappings” as this is the order used on L.29.
• P.7, L.16: Please make a new paragraph before “Results …”
• P.8, L. 5-6: You write “For eight coupler cores this difference becomes 13% and 22%”. How can this be as for 8 CPL cores, the number from Table 1 is 116 for both (8640,3456) and (10368,4320). I think something is wrong with the numbers reported in Table 1 as they are the same for 4 and 8 CPL cores for both (8640,3456) and (10368,4320), while this does not seem to be the case on Figure 4. Finally, the paragraph would be easier to understand if Table 1 would provide also numbers for (1152, 288).
• P.17, L.19: “flattering” should be “some flattening”
• P.19, L.15: can you give more details on “but greatly simplifies code”; which code? The CMF3.0 code? The coding one has to do in his component to interface with CMF3.0?

The following typos and English formulations should be corrected:
• P.6, L.7: “by by means”
• P.6, L.8: “In the beginning …” should be “At the beginning …”
• P.6, L.15: “The process is performed in the SCRIP format, i.e. …” could be “The SCRIP format is used, i.e. …”
• P.6, L.27: “maintaining” should be “ensuring”
• P. 10, L.14: consider changing “… to accelerate until the writing time is less then …” for “… to accelerate as long as the writing time is less than or equal to …”
• P.10, L.14: consider changing “… so it allows to obtain some acceleration of writing” for “so a reduction in the writing time is obtained when increasing the number of cores”
• P.10, L. consider changing “is more of a nice result” for “is a better result”
• P.14, L.30: “are weaker” could be “are not as good as”
• P.15, L.5”: consider changing “In the CMF3.0, services are responding to messages during all run time. Events are requests for certain actions on data arrays.” for “In CMF3.0, services respond to request messages and trigger certain actions on data arrays.”
• P.15, L.6-7: “we may know a schedule” could be “we may know in advance a schedule”
• P.15, L.18: consider changing “ga-array” for “GA-array
• P.17, L.11: “turns off” should be “turned off”
• P.18, L.7: consider changing “The restriction of spatio-temporal resolution was implied by available computer resources and not by restrictions of the CMF.” for “The spatio-temporal resolution was restricted by available computer resources but not by CMF itself.”
• P.18, L15: please add commas before and after “along with intraannual distribution characteristics of monthly data fields”
• P.18, L.28-29: consider changing “the solution of the data assimilation problem is scaled almost linearly” for “the data assimilation problem scales almost linearly”
• P.19, L.4: add “the” before “coupler”
• P.19, L.12: consider removing “strong” in “nearly linear strong scalability”
• P.19, L. 19: change “functional” for “functionality”

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (31 Jul 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Aug 2018) by Steve Easterbrook

AR by Maxim Kaurkin on behalf of the Authors (18 Aug 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (28 Aug 2018) by Steve Easterbrook

AR by Maxim Kaurkin on behalf of the Authors (01 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript