Dear Ray,
> This is a known bug in imin=5 with the PB module. A likely place is the
> memory allocation and re-initialization routine. We are looking into this as
> well in our own applications.
Ahh, glad to hear I'm not the only one having problems. Do you guys
have a rough estimate on timeframe? (i.e., if it's an issue of a few
days/couple weeks, I'll wait, but if it's a month or more, I'll find
some other way to do what I'm trying to do).
Thanks,
David
> All the best,
> Ray
> ==========================================
> Ray Luo, Ph.D.
> Dept Molecular Biology & Biochemistry
> University of California, Irvine, CA 92697
> USPS: PO Box 3900
> Phone: (949) 824-9528
> Email: rluo.uci.edu
> Web: http://rayl0.bio.uci.edu/
> ==========================================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David A. Case [mailto:case.scripps.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:24 AM
> To: amber.scripps.edu
> Cc: rluo.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: AMBER: bug in reprocessing with PB?
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2007, David Mobley wrote:
>
> > However, I'm attaching a tarball for one case that fails
> > (with PB) on either architecture. Again, it reprocesses fine using GB.
>
> Nothing was attached(!?!).
>
> Ray: if you or your people can look at this, it would be great: we need to
> make the pb routines in sander more reliable...thx
>
> ...dac
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The AMBER Mail Reflector
> To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Sun May 13 2007 - 06:07:29 PDT
