--- MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice.tex	2008/01/18 17:33:56	1.8
+++ MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice.tex	2008/01/21 08:06:00	1.9
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+% $Header: /home/ubuntu/mnt/e9_copy/MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice.tex,v 1.9 2008/01/21 08:06:00 mlosch Exp $
+% $Name:  $
 \documentclass[12pt]{article}
 
 \usepackage[]{graphicx}
@@ -134,7 +136,7 @@
 both thickness $h$ and compactness (concentration) $c$:
 \begin{equation}
   P_{\max} = P^{*}c\,h\,e^{[C^{*}\cdot(1-c)]},
-\label{icestrength}
+\label{eq:icestrength}
 \end{equation}
 with the constants $P^{*}$ and $C^{*}$. The nonlinear bulk and shear
 viscosities $\eta$ and $\zeta$ are functions of ice strain rate
@@ -435,6 +437,17 @@
 which in turn can have a strong effect on solutions in the limit of
 nearly rigid regimes (arching and blocking, not shown).
 
+\ml{[Say something about performance? This is tricky, as the
+  perfomance depends strongly on the configuration. A run with slowly
+  changing forcing is favorable for LSR, because then only very few
+  iterations are required for convergences while EVP uses its fixed
+  number of internal timesteps. If the forcing in changing fast, LSR
+  needs far more iterations while EVP still uses the fixed number of
+  internal timesteps. I have produces runs where for slow forcing LSR
+  is much faster than EVP and for fast forcing, LSR is much slower
+  than EVP. EVP is certainly more efficient in terms of vectorization
+  and MFLOPS on our SX8, but is that a criterion?]}
+
 \subsection{C-grid}
 \begin{itemize}
 \item no-slip vs. free-slip for both lsr and evp; 
