From: Bennion, Brian (Bennion1_at_llnl.gov)
Date: Fri May 24 2013 - 15:45:02 CDT
If you email is correct, one node with 24 cores seems to be standard enough to use the precompiled binary for the smp version of namd. having said that it is always a good experience to compile charmm++ and namd at least once in a lifetime....
________________________________________
From: owner-namd-l_at_ks.uiuc.edu [owner-namd-l_at_ks.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Andrew DeYoung [adeyoung_at_andrew.cmu.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:36 PM
To: namd-l_at_ks.uiuc.edu
Subject: namd-l: Should I use a precompiled binary?
Hi NAMD users,
I am new to NAMD, though I have about 1.5 years experience using other MD
codes. I have a working knowledge of Linux, but am not extremely
experienced.
Do you recommend that I install NAMD from a precompiled binary (available
here:
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Development/Download/download.cgi?PackageName=NAMD),
or should I install by compiling from the source code (also available on
that page)?
In other words, my question is, is there any advantage in terms of potential
performance of compiling from the source code? I will not be modifying the
source code; I would just like the fastest binary for the Linux-x86 cluster
(node with 24 cores) to which I have access. In my (limited) experience, it
seems that many of the other MD codes do not provide precompiled binaries.
I have heard that this is because "there are just so many platforms out
there."
Thanks so much,
Andrew DeYoung
Carnegie Mellon University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Dec 31 2013 - 23:23:15 CST