[gmx-users] system blowing up
shima_arasteh2001 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 28 12:36:36 CEST 2012
Thanks for your reply.
I'm following the protocol of Diagnosing an unstable system. Corresponding the first step I changed th nstxout to 1 for 3 times.
The first and second time I got error the same as before ( some interactions seem to be assigned multiple times ) and it the warning as below was appeared:
Warning: 1-4 interaction between 5 and 18 at distance 2.017 which is larger than the 1-4 table size 2.000 nm
For the third time, I did'nt get any error and the output files were generated without any warning or error.
Is it acceptable to go on with these outputs? Why such a thing happened? Is the system minimized sufficiently after 2 times?
From: Mark Abraham <Mark.Abraham at anu.edu.au>
To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] adding a new atom type
On 28/07/2012 4:34 AM, Shima Arasteh wrote:
> As I explained here before, I get an error ( some interactions seem to be assigned multiple times).
And it's been suggested several times that your system may be
diagnostic and management strategies are described there. Since you
haven't said whether it was immediately upon simulation start (so that
the topology might be doubtful, and probably only if you are the first
to find some new bug) or later on (when the topology is not directly to
blame for blowing up). Messing around duplicating atom types to try to
avoid the situation is presupposing the form of the solution to a
problem that you have not yet identified.
> I suspected the top file, so checked it and visualized the output of em.mdp; the output seems to be correct and I don't see any bonds behaves strangely.
OK, but the "bonds" you see there do not relate to the ones in your
So all you've seen is that nothing's gone wrong enough so far.
> As I studied in mailing lists it and you also mentioned , this may happen because of the insufficient minimization. I'm wondering how a good and sufficient minimization is provided?
Often whatever comes out of a single-precision EM run is fine. You have
not presented evidence that your minimization is insufficient, and there
are many other possible causes for blowing up. In the absence of a
description of your system, your .mdp file and how you've modified your
forcefield and/or topology, it's impossible to get effective help.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Justin Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu>
> To: Shima Arasteh <shima_arasteh2001 at yahoo.com>; Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 10:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] adding a new atom type
> On 7/27/12 1:08 PM, Shima Arasteh wrote:
>> Which parameter is supposed to be changed to get the sufficient minimized system? Would anyone guide me please?
> This question is very vague. In principle, any system can be minimized but the
> definition of "sufficient" depends on your goals.
>> Thanks in advance
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Justin Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu>
>> To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] adding a new atom type
>> On 7/25/12 7:58 AM, Shima Arasteh wrote:
>>> Some time ago I defined a new residue and after running grompp I got an error as there are some interactions assigned multiple times. Then I decided to duplicate the atoms involved in that residue to avoid this error.
>> That error usually indicates your system is crashing and the DD algorithm is failing. That means either the coordinates are insufficiently minimized, the topology is incorrect, or the .mdp settings are leading to instability.
>>> Next I renamed the atomtypes in atometypes.atp as below:
>>> ZC 12.01100 ; carbonyl C, peptide backbone
>>> ZCT1 12.01100 ; aliphatic sp3 C for CH
>>> ZCT3 12.01100 ; aliphatic sp3 C for CH3
>>> ZO 15.99900 ; carbonyl oxygen
>>> ZHC 1.00800 ; N-ter H
>>> ZNH1 14.00700 ; peptide nitrogen
>>> ZH 1.00800 ; polar H
>>> ZHB 1.00800 ; backbone H
>>> ZHA 1.00800 ; nonpolar H
>>> Then I wanted to modify the .itp file, got in to the trouble; I couldn't find the C atomtype in nonbonded.itp file. Actually I don't know what to do now!
>> Start over with a fresh set of force field files that you haven't experimented with and troubleshoot the stability of your system. If you Google or search the mailing list archive for this error, tons of useful results show up.
>> -- ========================================
>> Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
>> Research Scientist
>> Department of Biochemistry
>> Virginia Tech
>> Blacksburg, VA
>> jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
>> -- gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
>> * Only plain text messages are allowed!
>> * Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
>> * 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/Support/Mailing_Lists
gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
* Only plain text messages are allowed!
* Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
* 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/Support/Mailing_Lists
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users