From: Tristan Croll (tristan.croll_at_qut.edu.au)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2014 - 21:15:40 CDT
I would suggest looking at the AutoIMD code to see how it breaks out a subset of your structure for simulation then writes the coordinates back to the original PSF/PDB when finished. No sense holding the whole thing in memory at all if it's mostly fixed.
Tristan Croll
Lecturer
Faculty of Science and Technology
Institute of Health and Biomedical Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
60 Musk Ave
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059 Australia
+61 7 3138 6443
This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information intended for use by the addressee and may be privileged. We do not waive any confidentiality, privilege or copyright associated with the email or the attachments. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not use, transmit, disclose or copy the email or any attachments. If you receive this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original email.
On 19 Mar 2014, at 6:40 pm, "Norman Geist" <norman.geist_at_uni-greifswald.de<mailto:norman.geist_at_uni-greifswald.de>> wrote:
Hi experts,
is there any way currently, to influence the parallel departing of the simulation cell? I’m asking because I’m currently using a system where almost everything is fixed (a huge protein where we only try to fold a C-TERM onto it). So NAMD does of course depart the work equally to all processors and we do not get any speed gain throughout the fixing. PME is turned off of course.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance
Norman
________________________________
[http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png] <http://www.avast.com/>
Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus<http://www.avast.com/> Schutz ist aktiv.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Dec 31 2015 - 23:20:37 CST
