AMBER Archive (2004)Subject: Re: AMBER: Minimization error
From: opitz_at_che.udel.edu 
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 16:09:15 CDT
 
 
 
 ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
 
Dear Dr. Walker and Amber Community,
 
 I am running a minimization on an Octane and a Cluster. On my Octane
 
there were several warnings of this nature "RESTARTED DUE TO LINMIN
 
FAILURE", while there weren't on the cluster. 
 
Following Dr. Walkers suggestion I ran this on both machines with
 
different numbers of processors. Again, the linmin failure only happens
 
on the Octane system.
 
When comparing the energies at the end of each run, there are similar
 
energies for the same number of processors. Also, when comparing the
 
structures in Moil-view they look very similar.
 
 The tests that Dr. Walker asked about, they passed on Octane with just a
 
few warnings, but they turned out to be rounding errors. On the cluster I 
 
am not certain, as the system administrator had installed Amber7 there.
 
 I have appended the final results output from each of the runs as well as 
 
attached an excel spreadsheet with these results a bit more organized. My 
 
question is, which of these states is acceptable? Are all of these wrong? 
 
What should my next step be? Can I take one of these structures over
 
another and run MD on them? Some suggestions of how to deal with this
 
would be very welcome.
 
 Best Regards,
 
 Armin
 
 Cluster, 1 processor
 
 NSTEP       ENERGY          RMS            GMAX         NAME    NUMBER
 
  10000      -3.5386E+02     4.2995E-01     2.1918E+00     H4        970
 
  BOND    =       28.7085  ANGLE   =      276.2950  DIHED      =      342.8602
 
 VDWAALS =     -194.5266  EEL     =        0.6367  HBOND      =        0.0000
 
 1-4 VDW =      170.6297  1-4 EEL =     -978.4673  RESTRAINT  =        0.0000
 
 Cluster, 2 processors
 
 NSTEP       ENERGY          RMS            GMAX         NAME    NUMBER
 
  10000      -5.6080E+02     1.9868E-01     8.0435E-01     H11       382
 
  BOND    =       27.6700  ANGLE   =      219.6259  DIHED      =      310.2828
 
 VDWAALS =     -233.0950  EEL     =      -63.1986  HBOND      =        0.0000
 
 1-4 VDW =      156.4703  1-4 EEL =     -978.5568  RESTRAINT  =        0.0000
 
 Cluster, 4 processors
 
 NSTEP       ENERGY          RMS            GMAX         NAME    NUMBER
 
  10000      -1.9055E+02     7.2962E-01     3.7201E+00     H8        470
 
  BOND    =       32.7074  ANGLE   =      315.9480  DIHED      =      350.8248
 
 VDWAALS =     -113.1678  EEL     =        1.1835  HBOND      =        0.0000
 
 1-4 VDW =      198.3012  1-4 EEL =     -976.3509  RESTRAINT  =        0.0000
 
 Octane, 1 processor
 
 NSTEP       ENERGY          RMS            GMAX         NAME    NUMBER
 
   9223      -4.6784E+02     3.1572E-01     2.9213E+00     N1        574
 
  BOND    =       27.5847  ANGLE   =      254.6660  DIHED      =      324.6847
 
 VDWAALS =     -212.0963  EEL     =      -49.0792  HBOND      =        0.0000
 
 1-4 VDW =      164.6040  1-4 EEL =     -978.2072  RESTRAINT  =        0.0000
 
      ***** REPEATED LINMIN FAILURE *****
 
 Octane, 2 processors
 
 NSTEP       ENERGY          RMS            GMAX         NAME    NUMBER
 
   8567      -5.4532E+02     2.3128E-01     9.4289E-01     H7        450
 
  BOND    =       27.6072  ANGLE   =      233.3834  DIHED      =      316.5635
 
 VDWAALS =     -229.5771  EEL     =      -72.2528  HBOND      =        0.0000
 
 1-4 VDW =      158.3414  1-4 EEL =     -979.3807  RESTRAINT  =        0.0000
 
      ***** REPEATED LINMIN FAILURE *****
 
 ==============Original message text===============
 
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:48:27 EDT "Ross Walker" wrote:
 
 Dear Armin,
 
 The restarted due to linmin failure often happens when the minimiser stops
 
going anywhere during a minimisation. This can occur if you have minimised a
 
long way and have reached a minimum. It can also occur if you try to
 
minimise your system too far with shake turned on. The minimiser wants to
 
move the hydrogen bonds but can't because of shake.
 
 It is strange, however, that you only see this on one machine. You are
 
certain the runs are identical on the two machines? How about if you just
 
run it on 2 processors on the cluster? I suspect that there may be a problem
 
somewhere. Try running single cpu on the octane and see what you get.
 
 BTW, do all of the tests on the machines pass? Both with single cpu, 2 cpu
 
and 4 cpu? If they don't then there is definitely a problem with your
 
installation.
 
 Get back to me with the results of the tests.
 
 All the best
 
Ross
 
 /\
 
\/
 
|\oss Walker
 
 | Department of Molecular Biology TPC15 |
 
| The Scripps Research Institute |
 
| Tel:- +1 858 784 8889 | EMail:- ross_at_rosswalker.co.uk |
 
| http://www.rosswalker.co.uk/ | PGP Key available on request |
 
 
   
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The AMBER Mail Reflector
 
To post, send mail to amber_at_scripps.edu
 
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo_at_scripps.edu
 
  
 |