Re: [gmx-users] default -rdd with distance restraints seems too large

2013-10-17 Thread XAvier Periole

Hi Chris,

I mentioned that PS would have helped! I am sorry about the confusion. I should 
have been more clear. I guess you have not followed the particle decomposition 
threads lately :)) 

The PD option has been associated some serious issues lately … notably I 
noticed it does not work well in combination of REMD. Some info is not 
communicated correctly and thus a few variables are wrong. I forgot which ones 
… 

Most recently Floris (a PhD student with us in Groningen) has noticed that 
turning PD on would lead to severe buckling of a membrane to the point that the 
system would crash. The is happening quite fast. 

If you can use an older version of GMX (4.0.7) this would be fine but starting 
4.5.5 things are ugly :))

I hope this helps.

On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Christopher Neale  
wrote:

> Thanks for the hint XAvier.
> 
> Unfortunately, I get crashes with particle decomposition (see below). If I 
> use either DD or PD, I can run on up to 2 threads 
> without adjusting -rdd or -dds. I can only use >2 thread with DD if I set 
> -rdd 2.8. If I try to use more than 2 threads with PD, 
> I get lincs problems and immediate crashes. If I export GMX_MAXCONSTRWARN=-1 
> with the same setup , then I get a segfault immediately. 
> Note, however, that if I use constraints=none and set my timestep to 0.5 fs, 
> I can indeed use PD with 8 threads (without exporting GMX_MAXCONSTRWARN). 
> Also note that I am using the SD integrator, but I just tested and PD also 
> gives me an error with the md integrator.
> (( I don't think that the crashes have anything to do with improper setup. 
> These runs are fine in serial or in parallel as described 
> above and only ever "explode"/crash with PD and >2 threads, for which they do 
> so immediately )).
> 
> Here is the error that I get when I 
> 
> Step 0, time 0 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
> relative constraint deviation after LINCS: 
> rms 218.843810, max 8135.581543 (between atoms 15623 and 15624)
> bonds that rotated more than 30 degrees: 
> atom 1 atom 2  angle  previous, current, constraint length
>  13908  13916   90.80.2130   0.8066  0.1538 
>  13916  13917   90.30.2402   0.7979  0. 
>  13916  13918   90.20.2403   0.8452  0.
>  13916  13919   89.31.3408   0.9956  0.1430
> ...
> ...
>  22587  22589   31.70.4648   0.1144  0.
>  22587  22590   90.20.4168   0.1273  0.
> 
> Wrote pdb files with previous and current coordinates
> starting mdrun 'Gallium Rubidium Oxygen Manganese Argon Carbon Silicon in 
> water'
> 500 steps,  1.0 ps.
> 
> WARNING: Listed nonbonded interaction between particles 13908 and 13920
> at distance 3f which is larger than the table limit 3f nm.
> 
> This is likely either a 1,4 interaction, or a listed interaction inside
> a smaller molecule you are decoupling during a free energy calculation.
> Since interactions at distances beyond the table cannot be computed,
> they are skipped until they are inside the table limit again. You will
> only see this message once, even if it occurs for several interactions.
> 
> IMPORTANT: This should not happen in a stable simulation, so there is
> probably something wrong with your system. Only change the table-extension
> distance in the mdp file if you are really sure that is the reason.
> 
> 
> 
> step 0: Water molecule starting at atom 39302 can not be settled.
> Check for bad contacts and/or reduce the timestep if appropriate.
> 
> step 0: Water molecule starting at atom 53072 can not be settled.
> Check for bad contacts and/or reduce the timestep if appropriate.
> 
> Step 0, time 0 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
> relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
> rms 2569455308.447471, max 215672291328.00 (between atoms 14054 and 14055)
> bonds that rotated more than 30 degrees:
> atom 1 atom 2  angle  previous, current, constraint length
>  13442  13444   90.00.   0.1147  0.
>  13503  13506   40.80.1538   0.2002  0.1538
>  13506  13507   45.20.   0.1541  0.
> ...
> ...
>  19020  19023   89.80.1534 66420.9531  0.1530
> ;;dispcorr = EnerPres  ;; not using for CHARMM simulations
> 
> 
> ###
> 
> mdp options:
> 
> constraints = all-bonds
> lincs-iter =  1
> lincs-order =  6
> constraint_algorithm =  lincs
> integrator = sd
> dt = 0.002
> tinit = 0
> nsteps = 500
> nstcomm = 1
> nstxout = 500
> nstvout = 500
> nstfout = 500
> nstxtcout = 500
> nstenergy = 500
> nstlist = 10
> nstlog=0 ; reduce log file size
> ns_type = grid
> vdwtype = switch
> rlist = 1.2
> rlistlong = 1.3
> rvdw = 1.2
> rvdw-switch = 0.8
> rcoulomb = 1.2
> coulombtype = PME
> ewald-rtol = 1e-5
> optimize_fft = yes
> fourierspacing = 0.12
> fourier_nx = 0
> fourier_ny = 0
> fourier_nz = 0
> pme_order = 4
> tc_grps =  System   
> tau_t   =  1.0   
> ld_seed =  -1   
> ref_t = 310
> gen_temp = 310
> 

Re: [gmx-users] default -rdd with distance restraints seems too large

2013-10-17 Thread XAvier Periole

Yes it is a pity! 

But particle decomposition helps :)) well helped! 

> 
> It's a shame that long distance restraints limit the parallalization so much, 
> but it is understandable. Thanks for helping me with this.
> 
> Chris.
> 
> -- original message --
> 
> Initializing Domain Decomposition on 8 nodes
> Dynamic load balancing: auto
> Will sort the charge groups at every domain (re)decomposition
> Initial maximum inter charge-group distances:
>two-body bonded interactions: 2.636 nm, Dis. Rest., atoms 1701 4425
>  multi-body bonded interactions: 0.479 nm, CMAP Dih., atoms 1062 1081
> Minimum cell size due to bonded interactions: 2.899 nm
> Maximum distance for 7 constraints, at 120 deg. angles, all-trans: 1.172 nm
> Estimated maximum distance required for P-LINCS: 1.172 nm
> Using 0 separate PME nodes, as there are too few total
> nodes for efficient splitting
> Scaling the initial minimum size with 1/0.8 (option -dds) = 1.25
> Optimizing the DD grid for 8 cells with a minimum initial size of 3.624 nm
> The maximum allowed number of cells is: X 1 Y 1 Z 2
> 
> --
> gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> * Please search the archive at 
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
> * Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists

--
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists


Re: [gmx-users] default -rdd with distance restraints seems too large

2013-10-17 Thread Mark Abraham
Hi,

The log file gives a breakdown of how the minimum cell size was computed.
What does it say?

Mark
On Oct 17, 2013 5:17 AM, "Christopher Neale" 
wrote:

> I have a system that also uses a set of distance restraints
>
> The box size is:
>7.12792   7.12792  10.25212
>
> When running mdrun -nt 8, I get:
>
> Fatal error:
> There is no domain decomposition for 8 nodes that is compatible with the
> given box and a minimum cell size of 3.62419 nm
>
> However, the largest restrained distance is 2.0 nm and the largest
> displacement between restrained atoms is 2.63577 nm
>
> So why does mdrun set -rdd to 3.62419 nm ?
>
> If I run mdrun -rdd 2.8 everything works fine.
>
> Thank you,
> Chris.
>
> --
> gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> * Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
> * Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>
-- 
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the 
www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists