[Yt-dev] HaloProfiler vs. enzo_anyl

[Matthew Turk]

Sorry to so quickly reply to my own email, but I pulled out the list
of profiles that can be created by enzo_anyl and put them here:

http://paste.enzotools.org/show/1575/

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had an opportunity to speak yesterday with Greg Bryan (who's not
> subscribed to this list) and independent of this thread, he brought up
> replacing enzo_anyl with yt.  The one thing that I think we may be
> missing is the cooling time.  To get the cooling time in yt we have
> three options:
>
> 1) Re-calculate from scratch, using all the items in the parameter
> file that govern the cooling time.  This will also allow it to work
> for non-Enzo simulation outputs.
> 2) Wrap the Enzo cooling time routines.  This will require utilizing
> fortran/C interop, possibly with f2py.  It also has a lot of moving
> parts.  (These would be solved if some day there was some agreement on
> microphysical solver APIs.)  This would work with non-Enzo datasets.
> 3) Mandate that if you want the cooling time in your profiles, you run
> with OutputCoolingTime=1 in Enzo.  This would not work with non-Enzo
> datasets, unless they too had an option to output the local cooling
> time in every cell.
>
> I think #3 is the fastest time to solution, and certainly the option
> that is the least error prone.  (The list above, it seems to me, is
> actually in order of increasing reliability.)
>
> The remaining items that we would need to accomplish to make
> HaloProfiler a generalized replacement for enzo_anyl, I believe, are
> either implementing the remaining fields (there may be a handful) and
> actually coming up with a list of all the fields to profile.  Ideally
> I think we should calculate 1- and 2-D profiles for every field, and
> an HDF5 file with all of the profiles in it.  The final output could
> then *additionally* include image plots of phase plots of
> mass-distribution with the average 1D profile overplotted.  And
> perhaps projections.  If we did all this, then we could not only aim
> to replicate functionality, but to enhance it.
>
> Best,
>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Rick, Cameron, everyone,
>>
>> Cameron is correct.  I'm not suggesting any changes to Enzo.
>>
>> Back before yt, enzo_anyl was used to make radial profiles of halos.  My
>> understanding is that it only works in serial and that it is relatively
>> difficult, or at least not straightforward, to add new fields for radial
>> profiles.
>>
>> The HaloProfiler tool in yt makes radial profiles in the same way, only it
>> take user input to decide on what fields to profile.  It also can run in
>> parallel and do fixed resolution projections around each halo.  Personally,
>> I think this makes using the HaloProfiler a better choice moving forward.
>> However, I have heard suggestions that the HaloProfiler lacks some
>> functionality of enzo_anyl, preventing it from being a true replacement.  I
>> don't think enzo_anyl should be gotten rid of if people are still using it.
>> I just want to know what's missing so people who would like to use yt for
>> their enzo_anyl needs don't feel like they are losing functionality by
>> switching.
>>
>> Britton
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Cameron Hummels
>> <chummels at astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rick,
>>>
>>> I don't think he's suggesting we change enzo.  I think he simply wants
>>> to know what functionality is lacking from yt's haloprofiler that
>>> enzoanyl currently has.  That said, I think when we get haloprofiler
>>> working up to spec with enzoanyl's capabilities, we should announce it
>>> to the enzo list, so people who use enzoanyl (there aren't many of us)
>>> will know that there is a better supported alternative in yt.
>>>
>>> Cameron
>>>
>>> On 04/12/2011 12:18 PM, Rick Wagner wrote:
>>> > Hi Britton,
>>> >
>>> > On Apr 12, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Britton Smith wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hey everyone,
>>> >>
>>> >> There is a fair amount of discussion about the HaloProfiler being a
>>> >> replacement for enzo_anyl.  I would definitely like to see this become
>>> >> official, since it seems to be keeping a number of people from making the
>>> >> switch to YT.  Can somebody outline the things that enzo_anyl does that the
>>> >> HaloProfiler cannot?  I have been under the impression that there wasn't
>>> >> anything, but I haven't used enzo_anyl in quite a while.
>>> > I think that the HaloProfiler could easily be wrapped to look at act
>>> > just like enzo_anyl, which makes this an attractive choice. But, I would
>>> > post this question also the enzo-dev mailing list, since you're asking about
>>> > changing Enzo, not YT.
>>> >
>>> > --Rick
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Yt-dev mailing list
>>> > Yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Hummels
>>> PhD Candidate, Astronomy Department of Columbia University
>>> Public Outreach Director, Astronomy Department of Columbia University
>>> NASA IYA New York State Student Ambassador
>>> http://outreach.astro.columbia.edu
>>> PGP: 0x06F886E3
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Yt-dev mailing list
>>> Yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Yt-dev mailing list
>> Yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>