Re: [AMBER] trajectory of minimization using generalized Born

From: Jason Swails <jason.swails.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:36:20 -0400

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Edwin Helbert Aponte Angarita <helbert2a.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I have installed AmberTools14 (and applied all updates and passed _all_
> tests) in my home directory on this cluster and used its sander to run the
> minimization using 16 processors and got again "ERROR IN SETPAR() upon atom
> distribution"
>
> Thus, as pointed out before, this error should be because the peptide is
> very short and there is not enough workload to spread across 16 processors,
> shouldn't it?

I think so. Minimizations also use different parallelization scheme than MD (although not *that* different). So it’s possible you won’t see this limitation in MD.

In any case, 16 CPUs for a 34-residue peptide in implicit solvent is most likely overkill. I would stick to 8 (or maybe even 4 -- you would have to benchmark to find the optimum number of CPUs for your system).

HTH,
Jason

--
Jason M. Swails
BioMaPS,
Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Researcher
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Mon Mar 23 2015 - 12:00:02 PDT
Custom Search