Thanks!
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Jason Swails <jason.swails.gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Chris Bryant <csb61.case.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to estimate how many cpu hours a simulation will take, but I
> am
> > not sure how to calculate it. The output file gives time began and
> ended,
> > which I could use to get the total simulation time and then multiply that
> > by
> > cpus to get an upper bound on cpu hours (assuming the total simulation
> time
> > was not at 100% efficiency), but I was wondering if their was a better
> >
>
> That should be your exact CPU hours (number of processors * wallclock time)
> as charged by a supercomputing center. If you reserve 12 processors to run
> a serial calculation on (so 11 are running idle), you're still charged or
> those 12 processors, even though 11 are running near 0% capacity. I think
> that's the best you can do.
>
>
> > indication of this. There is another time given in the output files,
> > labeled "total time," but I am not sure what units it is in. For
> instance,
> > a simulation run with 16 cpus with a "total time" of 37737 clocks in at
> >
>
> 37737 is in seconds. If you divide it by 3600, you get 10.4825, or
> 10:28:57. Run on 16 CPUs, this is 167.72 CPU-hours. That's if you don't
> include any other time taken (i.e. if there's anything else in your script
> that might take some time).
>
> HTH,
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason M. Swails
> Quantum Theory Project,
> University of Florida
> Ph.D. Candidate
> 352-392-4032
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Thu Aug 25 2011 - 19:30:02 PDT
