Dears

Thank you for your attentions,

1- we have a periodic system with 164 atom. all calculations have been done by 
3.2. 
So, we used "SpinPolarized T" for our goal. The ubuntu and single core of cpu 
have been used for all simulations. You can find the "fdf" and "out" files of 
one of them in attachment which have zipped and named 3.2. 
It should be noted that in files of 3.2, we used "SpinPolarized T" and you can 
observe in output file, the following internal auxiliary supercell:
"superc: Internal auxiliary supercell:     1 x     1 x     4  =       4"
2- after our investigation, we find that the "SpinPolarized T" is not proper 
for us while we need to use "Spin  non-collinear" 
So we change 3.2 to 4.1-b3 and start to same prevois run only with change 
"SpinPolarized T" to "Spin  non-collinear". You can find the "fdf" and "out" 
files of one of them in attachment which have zipped and named 4.1-b3. However, 
this run has not completed yet. here, we find in output internal auxiliary 
supercell change to follow:superc: Internal auxiliary supercell:     3 x     3 
x     5  =      45
Let us to know for 2 questionsA) why does changing the "SpinPolarized T" to 
"Spin  non-collinear"change Internal auxiliary supercell form 4 to 45?2) in 
4.1-b3, when we use "SpinPolarized T", Internal auxiliary supercell is   3 x    
 3 x     5  =      45!!!!!!!!!
In summery, we think that "Spin  non-collinear" is very hard to calculate, but  
we think here Internal auxiliary supercell makes difficulty to finish a cycle 
of DFT 
Am I wrong?    

Sincerely Yours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Muhammad Shadman 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Assistant Professor of Physical Chemistry (PhD),
Group of Physical Chemistry,
Department of Chemistry
Faculty of Science,
University of Zanjan,
Zanjan,
Iran.
P.O.Box: 313, 
Postal Code: 45371-38111 
Mobile no.: +98-912-671-4198
Tel & Fax: +98-24-3305-2583, 2477
web page:
http://www.znu.ac.ir/members/shadman_muhammad 
(http://www.znu.ac.ir/members/shadman_muhammad)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
email:
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) 
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 23:35, Nick Papior  wrote: Dear Muhammad,
In order to investigate this it would help if you elaborate your problem.
1) It is unclear which differences you experience between 3.2 and 4.1-b3. If 
you could please elaborate the differences you experience. I.e. attach an 
output of siesta for 3.2 and for 4.1-b3 using the same number of cores and same 
input file.
2) It is not clear whether you only did non-colinear using 4.1-b3, if so, then 
you cannot compare against a spin-polarized calculation in terms of 
performance. A non-colinear calculation is much more difficult to converge 
beside the fact that the diagonalization is twice the size of a spin-polarized 
calculation.
3) The size of the auxiliary supercell has little influence on the performance 
and/or the convergence. So I do not suspect this to be of importance. 
To summarize, please attach more specific differences for us to help you. 
2017-10-02 20:25 GMT+02:00 Muhammad Shadman :

Dear exclusive developers of SIESTA

At first, we must thank you for your code. Up to now we used the 3.2 version of 
it. After releasing the last version siesta-4.1-b3 it was our interest to 
calculate  instead of  for our crystallize materials. In version of 3.2 we have 
not any problem even with single core calculation, and our runs done for 
maximum of 1 day. Now with new version we observed strange state as follow:

superc: Internal auxiliary supercell:     3 x     3 x     5  =      45
superc: Number of atoms, orbitals, and projectors:   7380  91080 112410 

we find that any run with omitted spin shows the above super cell = 45
I am afraid this is probability be a bug!!!! 

As you know, this makes very long time simulation calculation even with mpi 
method. 
for the best investigation and response to us you can find our fdf file in 
attachment. 
Let us know if you can check it out and solve it. 
Sincerely Yours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Muhammad Shadman 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Assistant Professor of Physical Chemistry (PhD),
Group of Physical Chemistry,
Department of Chemistry
Faculty of Science,
University of Zanjan,
Zanjan,
Iran.
P.O.Box: 313, 
Postal Code: 45371-38111 
Mobile no.: +98-912-671-4198 (tel:+98%20912%20671%204198)
Tel & Fax: +98-24-3305-2583 (tel:+98%2024%203305%202583), 2477
web page:
http://www.znu.ac.ir/members/shadman_muhammad 
(http://www.znu.ac.ir/members/shadman_muhammad)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
email:
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) 
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 

Kind regards Nick

Attachment: 3.2.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data

Attachment: 4.1-b3.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data

Responder a