[Eike]

Hi,

I'm using a Dell T7500 Workstation with two 3,6GHz Intel Quad Cores and 48 GB Ram (will upgrade to 96GB), using STAR-CCM+ 6.06.011. The Cluster is a 16-node Dell with two Intel 6-core CPUs and 24GB of RAM each node.

My today's simulation has 12M cells using 30GB of RAM after the initialisation on my Workstation. The output-file at a solution time of 0.1s (time step 0.001s) is something about 50GB ... ist takes several hours for saving the file after the batch run. Even saving much smaller output-files takes a long time. Is 24GB of RAM OK for the headnode, or would an upgrade decrease the time for saving output-files?

Best wishes
Eike

[kyle]

The amount of RAM that you have has very little to do with how long it takes to save. Network speed and hard disk speed are the bottlenecks for saving parallel runs.

Are you saving the entire flow field for every single timestep to a single *.CCM file? If you are, then you might want to try saving to a different *.CCM file every time. This way you don't have to read in and save the entire flowfield history every time you want to output.

Additionally, frequent saves of the entire flowfield doesn't fit well with the Star-CCM+ "philosophy". Your post processing should be done during the simulation. Set up your scenes to output the pictures during the run and set up monitors to log the time history of whatever variables you want to track.

[RobertB]

The philosophy of knowing up front what figures you will require is, at best, flawed.

I appreciate there are areas where this is the case but in design optimization of complicated devices this is typically not the case.

Would it be acceptable for a steady state run to have only a few pictures/values that you set ahead of the analysis and could not change without fully rerunning the case again once you realized how the physics of the new design actually operated?

I appreciate that with transients it is hard due to the data involved, one reason why STAR allows you to save transient result files with partial data. In this case could you export a subset of data to minimize file size?

Good Luck.

[kyle]

Originally Posted by RobertB

The philosophy of knowing up front what figures you will require is, at best, flawed.
.

I'm right there with you buddy. I cannot stand the design of Star-CCM+.

[Eike]

Set up your scenes to output the pictures during the run and set up monitors to log the time history of whatever variables you want to track.

That is what I've done ...

There is no autosave during the simulation. Let's say my file is named test.sim and runs 1000 iterations. The outputfile is named test@01000.sim and is saved at the same directory when all the calculatons finished.

My workstation is used for pre and post. After the setup I copy the sim-file to the cluster. The cluster has an infiniband network and 20TB of RAID-disk space. Copying a file form disk to disk on the cluster, the disk speed is just a little bit below 1GB/second. So I think there is no bottle neck causing 7 hours for saving 107GB (my yesterday's file).

[RobertB]

I have to admit that saves of big files (for me that is ~25-30GB) have seemed very slow. I assumed it was something to do with Linux cache sizes/our disk set up/... but it still seemed slow given how fast disks should be.

I wonder if it is either copying the files locally and then reading and writing off the same disk or if there is a somewhat brain dead sorting algorithm in the code that only really dies at very high data sizes.