From: Norman Geist (norman.geist_at_uni-greifswald.de)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2013 - 01:09:38 CST
Why not simply setting „pmegridspacing 1“?
I usually use numcpus/numgpus for each gpu. And really believe me, you only got 6 cores not 12. And running 2 simulations on only one cpu socket is inefficient.
Von: owner-namd-l_at_ks.uiuc.edu [mailto:owner-namd-l_at_ks.uiuc.edu] Im Auftrag von James Starlight
Gesendet: Samstag, 9. November 2013 15:53
An: Namd Mailing List
Betreff: Re: namd-l: Two GPU-based workstation
by the way increasing of the fullElectFrequency > 1 has end simulation with the errors about unproperly set XYZ of the PME boundaries ( with fullElectFrequency 1 I use 80 80 120 simulating membrane protein and have not any errors. How could I change pme options ?
also my question is the optimal balancing of the number of CPUs for each GPU. Is there some impirical relationships showing what amount of CPUs is needed for each GPU ?
assuming that I obtained best performance using
namd2 +idlepoll +p12 +devices 0 ./aMD.conf
I'd like to share some CPUs between both available GPUs for the 2 parallel simulations.
2013/11/8 James Starlight <jmsstarlight_at_gmail.com>
Could fullelectfrequency 4 increase performance exactly dual-gpu regime ?
In case of running two simulations will it be enough to provide each gpu with the 6 cores ? ( I suppose that I have not obtain good performance in 2 gpu regime exactly due to small number of cores for each gpu)
2013/11/7 Ajasja Ljubetič <ajasja.ljubetic_at_gmail.com>
On 7 November 2013 06:32, James Starlight <jmsstarlight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
I've gone to conclusion that using 2 GPUs simultaneously gave me the same performance as 1 GPU like
Yes, this is expected, for such small systems there is too little work at each step to scale efficiently. You can however run one (or two or three) independent simulations on each GPU.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Dec 31 2014 - 23:21:53 CST