[gmx-users] Strategy for chaining jobs using different mdp parameters (long)
Dear colleagues,
I've done many chained simulations up to now but i'm encoutering
problems and i'm skeptical about some choices i made before. In order to
clear this up, i'd like you to share your experience, so that'll answer
my needs and be a good template for the upcoming wiki.
I want (and need) to chain jobs with different conditions for 3 reasons:
1 - cluster needs (need to split jobs), tpbconv could be sufficient, but
i'm changing parameters
2 - ensemble changing (switching from NVT to NPT for instance)
3 - dynamics fine-control (posre on specific atoms/groups)
Please see below and the attached files for run parameters.
a) NVT then NPT.
I've tried using NVT (pr1) for starting my simulation and then NPT
(pr2). The major differences between pr1 (NVT) and pr2 (NVT) are:
pr1:
Pcoupl = no
gen_vel= yes
---
pr2:
Pcoupl = berendsen
gen_vel= no
The runs are chained like this:
(ini directory contains the top and gro file from previously minimised
structure, mdp directory contains the reference mdp)
pr1 step:
grompp \
-f ../mdp/pr1.mdp \
-p ../ini/molecule_ini.top \
-pp molecule_pr1.top \
-c ../ini/molecule_ini.gro \
-o molecule_pr1.tpr \
-po molecule_pr1.mdp
mdrun \
-s molecule_pr1.tpr \
-o molecule_pr1.trr \
-c molecule_pr1.gro \
-g molecule_pr1.log \
-e molecule_pr1.edr \
-nice 0
pr2 step:
grompp \
-f ../mdp/pr2.mdp \
-p ../ini/molecule_ini.top \
-pp molecule_pr2.top \
-c ../ini/molecule_ini.gro \
-o molecule_pr2.tpr \
-t ../pr1/molecule_pr1.trr \
-po molecule_pr2.mdp
(note there is no -e ../pr1/molecule_pr1.edr since we're switching from
NVT to NPT, as pointed out by Mark Abraham on the list
http://www.gromacs.org/pipermail/gmx-users/2007-May/027193.html)
mdrun \
-s molecule_pr2.tpr \
-o molecule_pr2.trr \
-c molecule_pr2.gro \
-g molecule_pr2.log \
-e molecule_pr2.edr \
-nice 0
As you may have noticed, i'm doing positionnal restraints (pr) runs at
theses steps.
Do i need to specify unconstrained_start= yes?
I've not used it for the moment...
Is there any specific precaution to take while doing this?
In particular, i'm seing for the NPT (pr2) start:
#
Step 1 Warning: pressure scaling more than 1%, mu: -1.59647e+20
-1.59647e+20 -1.59647e+20
Correcting invalid box:
old box (3x3):
old box[0]={-9.82630e+20, 0.0e+00, -0.0e+00}
old box[1]={ 0.0e+00, -8.90833e+20, -0.0e+00}
old box[2]={ 0.0e+00, 0.0e+00, -1.12456e+21}
new box (3x3):
new box[0]={-9.82630e+20, 0.0e+00, -0.0e+00}
new box[1]={ 0.0e+00, -8.90833e+20, -0.0e+00}
new box[2]={ 0.0e+00, 8.90833e+20, -1.12456e+21}
#
Of course the system exploses (but this is another story, in the ml,
David van der Spoel stated this could be due to a system setup problem,
i'll open a new thread on this specific problem).
I'm not completely sure if the problem arises from my specific system or
if i'm missing something while switching from NVT to NPT (see below for
reference files).
b) Reference files while continuing the run (not using tbpconv)
Even if i use the same NPT conditions, i still see some parameters
problem, for instance:
#
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (OW - HW2)
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (HW1 - OW)
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (HW2 - HW1)
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (OW - HW2)
#
I've understood this comes from the usage of -shuffle *and* -sort option
(and actually, to get the proper ordering, there is only g_desort, as
mentionned in
http://www.gromacs.org/pipermail/gmx-users/2007-January/025584.html),
but i'm suspicious about the -renum and -renumbs options in grompp
(on by default), if it alters the resulting -processed- topology, or not.
To be clear, i'm not completely sure if i need to do:
starting conformation = ../ini/molecule.top and ../ini/molecule.gro
directories :
mkdir {ini,pr1,pr2}
pr1 step:
grompp \
-f ../mdp/pr1.mdp \
-p ../ini/molecule_ini.top \
-pp molecule_pr1.top \
-c ../ini/molecule_ini.gro \
-o molecule_pr1.tpr \
-po molecule_pr1.mdp
mdrun \
-s molecule_pr1.tpr \
-o molecule_pr1.trr \
-c molecule_pr1.gro \
-g molecule_pr1.log \
-e molecule_pr1.edr \
-nice 0
pr2 step:
grompp \
-f ../mdp/pr2.mdp \
-p ../ini/molecule_ini.top \
-pp molecule_pr2.top \
-c ../ini/molecule_ini.gro \
-o molecule_pr2.tpr \
-t ../pr1/molecule_pr1.trr \
-po molecule_pr2.mdp
mdrun \
-s molecule_pr2.tpr \
-o molecule_pr2.trr \
-c molecule_pr2.gro \
-g
Re: [gmx-users] Strategy for chaining jobs using different mdp parameters (long)
Stéphane Téletchéa wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I've done many chained simulations up to now but i'm encoutering
problems and i'm skeptical about some choices i made before. In order to
clear this up, i'd like you to share your experience, so that'll answer
my needs and be a good template for the upcoming wiki.
I want (and need) to chain jobs with different conditions for 3 reasons:
1 - cluster needs (need to split jobs), tpbconv could be sufficient, but
i'm changing parameters
2 - ensemble changing (switching from NVT to NPT for instance)
3 - dynamics fine-control (posre on specific atoms/groups)
Please see below and the attached files for run parameters.
a) NVT then NPT.
I've tried using NVT (pr1) for starting my simulation and then NPT
(pr2). The major differences between pr1 (NVT) and pr2 (NVT) are:
pr1:
Pcoupl = no
gen_vel= yes
---
pr2:
Pcoupl = berendsen
gen_vel= no
Of course, there's more to it than this, because the non-no choices
activate other options, particularly for pressure coupling.
The runs are chained like this:
(ini directory contains the top and gro file from previously minimised
structure, mdp directory contains the reference mdp)
pr1 step:
grompp \
-f ../mdp/pr1.mdp \
-p ../ini/molecule_ini.top \
-pp molecule_pr1.top \
-c ../ini/molecule_ini.gro \
-o molecule_pr1.tpr \
-po molecule_pr1.mdp
mdrun \
-s molecule_pr1.tpr \
-o molecule_pr1.trr \
-c molecule_pr1.gro \
-g molecule_pr1.log \
-e molecule_pr1.edr \
-nice 0
Do be aware that mdrun -deffnm molecule_pr1 -nice 0 is available to do
this in a much less verbose manner :-)
pr2 step:
grompp \
-f ../mdp/pr2.mdp \
-p ../ini/molecule_ini.top \
-pp molecule_pr2.top \
-c ../ini/molecule_ini.gro \
-o molecule_pr2.tpr \
-t ../pr1/molecule_pr1.trr \
-po molecule_pr2.mdp
(note there is no -e ../pr1/molecule_pr1.edr since we're switching from
NVT to NPT, as pointed out by Mark Abraham on the list
http://www.gromacs.org/pipermail/gmx-users/2007-May/027193.html)
mdrun \
-s molecule_pr2.tpr \
-o molecule_pr2.trr \
-c molecule_pr2.gro \
-g molecule_pr2.log \
-e molecule_pr2.edr \
-nice 0
As you may have noticed, i'm doing positionnal restraints (pr) runs at
theses steps.
Do i need to specify unconstrained_start= yes?
I've not used it for the moment...
There's not a strong need to use it while switching ensembles (in that
you're going to have to re-equilibrate anyway) but I think you should
use it to reduce the occurrence of problems.
Is there any specific precaution to take while doing this?
In particular, i'm seing for the NPT (pr2) start:
#
Step 1 Warning: pressure scaling more than 1%, mu: -1.59647e+20
-1.59647e+20 -1.59647e+20
Correcting invalid box:
old box (3x3):
old box[0]={-9.82630e+20, 0.0e+00, -0.0e+00}
old box[1]={ 0.0e+00, -8.90833e+20, -0.0e+00}
old box[2]={ 0.0e+00, 0.0e+00, -1.12456e+21}
new box (3x3):
new box[0]={-9.82630e+20, 0.0e+00, -0.0e+00}
new box[1]={ 0.0e+00, -8.90833e+20, -0.0e+00}
new box[2]={ 0.0e+00, 8.90833e+20, -1.12456e+21}
#
Of course the system exploses (but this is another story, in the ml,
David van der Spoel stated this could be due to a system setup problem,
i'll open a new thread on this specific problem).
I'm not completely sure if the problem arises from my specific system or
if i'm missing something while switching from NVT to NPT (see below for
reference files).
b) Reference files while continuing the run (not using tbpconv)
Even if i use the same NPT conditions, i still see some parameters
problem, for instance:
#
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (OW - HW2)
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (HW1 - OW)
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (HW2 - HW1)
Warning: atom names in ../pr1/test_min_deflated25_sol_ions.top and
../pr1/OR1G1_min_formd.gro don't match (OW - HW2)
#
I've understood this comes from the usage of -shuffle *and* -sort option
(and actually, to get the proper ordering, there is only g_desort, as
mentionned in
http://www.gromacs.org/pipermail/gmx-users/2007-January/025584.html),
but i'm suspicious about the -renum and -renumbs options in grompp
(on by default), if it alters the resulting -processed- topology, or not.
To be clear, i'm not completely sure if i need to do:
starting conformation = ../ini/molecule.top and ../ini/molecule.gro
directories :
mkdir {ini,pr1,pr2}
pr1 step:
grompp \
-f ../mdp/pr1.mdp \
-p ../ini/molecule_ini.top \
-pp molecule_pr1.top \
-c ../ini/molecule_ini.gro \
-o molecule_pr1.tpr \
-po molecule_pr1.mdp
