You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am attending the EGU this week and watching some presentations on exascale computing.
One trend has been to stop using NC_DOUBLE (which is very typical in models), and use NC_FLOAT instead. (This is being done with the UFS at NOAA with great results.)
However, the trend can be carried even further, and I just saw a presentation about the speed of 16-bit floating point numbers. They are at least twice as fast as 32-bit, and in some cases even faster. So the question is: how would such numbers be stored?
(In terms of implementation, it is possible in HDF5 to define a 16-bit floating point type.)
I will therefore be the first to raise the question: should netCDF support a 16-bit floating point type?
@gsjaardema any thoughts? Have you heard of this approach yet?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the finite element / finite volume I/O area that I am primarily involved in, we have not had requests for storing this data yet and I think it is primarily being used in the machine learning areas (e.g. PyTorch)
I am attending the EGU this week and watching some presentations on exascale computing.
One trend has been to stop using NC_DOUBLE (which is very typical in models), and use NC_FLOAT instead. (This is being done with the UFS at NOAA with great results.)
However, the trend can be carried even further, and I just saw a presentation about the speed of 16-bit floating point numbers. They are at least twice as fast as 32-bit, and in some cases even faster. So the question is: how would such numbers be stored?
(In terms of implementation, it is possible in HDF5 to define a 16-bit floating point type.)
I will therefore be the first to raise the question: should netCDF support a 16-bit floating point type?
@gsjaardema any thoughts? Have you heard of this approach yet?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: