Re: [AMBER] Memory usage of NMR COM restraints 4 times larger in amber 16?

From: Paul Westphälinger <paul_westphaelinger.ewetel.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:38:38 +0100

For everyones convenience I have now uploaded the testcase so you can just

download it if you want to take a look.

https://syncandshare.lrz.de/filestable/MkR2Qld2TDlWZXo4N3N5WXdndG1y


Am 22.03.2017 um 17:17 schrieb Paul Westphälinger:
> I send two mails one with and one without, the one with appendix is
> still awaiting moderator approval i think. So maybe you could look into
> that.
>
>
> Am 22.03.2017 um 16:24 schrieb David Case:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017, Paul Westphälinger wrote:
>>> I would appreciate an if this bug was recorded in some fashion, if I can
>>> help fix it I would be happy to help in any capacity.
>> We know about the problem, although I'm not sure that anyone on the
>> development team has a complete set of files to try to reproduce this. I know
>> that I was confused earlier, thinking that you were using the newer "nfe"
>> code.
>>
>>>> I will append the two test cases.(removed the appendix..)
>> Not sure why you left out the test cases; the easier it is for someone
>> to run an example that illustrates the problem, the more likely it is that
>> you might get some reply.
>>
>> ....dac
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Thu Mar 23 2017 - 04:00:03 PDT
Custom Search