[gmx-users] Advices needed!

Triguero, Luciano O ltriguero at miami.edu
Tue Feb 27 19:42:58 CET 2007

Hello everyone,

Does anyone in the list know how to overcome this problem?

Error message after 2010 iter in mdrun simulation

Warning: 1-4 interaction between 278 and 281 at distance 1.863 which is larger than the 1-4 table size 1.000 nm
These are ignored for the rest of the simulation
This usually means your system is exploding,
if not, you should increase table-extension in your mdp file



Dr. Luciano Triguero
College of Art and Science
Department of Chemistry
Cox Science Building
1301 Memorial Drive, Room 146
P.O Box 249118
Coral Gables, FL 33124-0431
Cellular: 305-904-2419
Office: 305-284-3938

-----Original Message-----
From: gmx-users-bounces at gromacs.org on behalf of chris.neale at utoronto.ca
Sent: Tue 2/27/2007 12:31 PM
To: gmx-users at gromacs.org
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] restarting a sorted shuffled trajectory
> My problem was that i used the  wrong .top and .gro (the sorted and  
> shuffled one) file with the sorted, shuffled trr. The discrepancy  
> came from the
> pre-processed .tpr (since one need to provide the .top and .gro linked
> into the processed .tpr tpr).
> Problem solved, run done (still need a lot of work, though ;-).

This sounds strange to me. If you are using tpbconv then everything  
should be straightforward (and there should be no need for a .gro file  
for restarts). If you are using grompp to do the restarts then you can  
not use your originally shuffled and sorted .trr (by originally  
shuffled and sorted I mean the one from the very first run). I would  
strongly recommend that you use g_msd and select the waters. If you  
get discontinuities at the restart positions then something is wrong.  
Also you should load the trajectory (at least a part spanning a  
restart) into VMD and select a few water molecules to watch and ensure  
that they don't "hop" at the restart.

If you just want to use shuffle without sort then you don't need to do  
the complicated procedure that I outlined. However, if you are in  
explicit solvent and want to use sort as well then I imagine that the  
benefit of sorting is entirely lost by a couple of ns as the waters  
are no longer in their "sorted" section (in coordinate space).

> However, you remark (see below) about the diminution of performance
> according to the initial sort over time is very interesting and i'll
> probably give it a try to improve scaling (on a single machine with 4
> processors, the relative performance is reported to be 78%, i would
> expect something close to 100%).

On a single machine with 4 processors (communications not rate  
limiting) using shuffle and sort you should get 100% scaling even with  
PME. In fact I get 100% with LAM-mpi and something like 110% with  
open-mpi when resorting every 200ps. How it is possible to get >100%  
is unclear to me.

gmx-users mailing list    gmx-users at gromacs.org
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the 
www interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php

More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list