[gmx-users] Gromacs 5.0 compilation slower than 4.6.5. What wentwrong ?

Abhishek Acharya abhi117acharya at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 18:42:10 CEST 2014 

Dear Mark,

Thank you for the insightful reply. 
In the manual for gromacs 5.0 it was mentioned that verlet scheme is better for GPU systems. 
Does that mean that we should give up on the group scheme scheme, even though we get good performance compared to verlet? Future plan of removing group cut-off scheme indicates that it must have been associated with a high cost-benefit ratio.
Could you please shed little light on this  ?
Thanks.

Regards, 
Abhishek

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mark Abraham" <mark.j.abraham at gmail.com>
Sent: ‎9/‎5/‎2014 7:57 PM
To: "Discussion list for GROMACS users" <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Gromacs 5.0 compilation slower than 4.6.5. What wentwrong ?

This cutoff-scheme difference is probably caused by using an .mdp file that
does not specify the cutoff scheme, and the default changed in 5.0. grompp
issued a note about this, if you go and check it. The change in the -npme
choice is a direct consequence of this; the heuristics underlying the
splitting choice approximately understand the relative performance
characteristics of the two implementations, and you can see that in
practice the reported PP/PME balance is decent in each case.

There is indeed a large chunk of water (which you can see in group-scheme
log files e.g. the line in the FLOP accounting that says NB VdW & Elec.
[W3-W3,F] dominates the cost), and David's neighbour list is unbuffered.
This is indeed the regime where the group scheme might still out-perform
the Verlet scheme (depending whether you value buffering in the neighbour
list, which you generally should!).

Mark


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Abhi Acharya <abhi117acharya at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
> Is you system solvated with water molecules?
>
> The reason I ask is that, in case of the run with 4.6.5 you gromacs has
> used a group cut-off scheme, whereas 5.0 has used verlet scheme. For system
> with water molecules, group scheme gives better performance than verlet.
>
> For more check out:
> http://www.gromacs.org/Documentation/Cut-off_schemes
>
> Regards,
> Abhishek Acharya
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Carsten Kutzner <ckutzne at gwdg.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > you might want to use g_tune_pme to find out the optimal number
> > of PME nodes for 4.6 and 5.0.
> >
> > Carsten
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05 Sep 2014, at 15:39, David McGiven <davidmcgivenn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What is even more strange is that I tried with 10 pme nodes (mdrun
> -ntmpi
> > > 48 -v -c TEST_md.gro -npme 16), got a 15,8% performance loss and ns/day
> > are
> > > very similar : 33 ns/day
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > 2014-09-05 14:54 GMT+02:00 David McGiven <davidmcgivenn at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Abhi,
> > >>
> > >> Yes I noticed that imbalance but I thought gromacs knew better than
> the
> > >> user how to split PP/PME!!
> > >>
> > >> How is it possible that 4.6.5 guesses better than 5.0 ?
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, I tried :
> > >> mdrun -nt 48 -v -c test.out
> > >>
> > >> Exits with an error "You need to explicitly specify the number of MPI
> > >> threads (-ntmpi) when using separate PME ranks"
> > >>
> > >> Then:
> > >> mdrun -ntmpi 48 -v -c TEST_md.gro -npme 12
> > >>
> > >> Then again 35 ns/day with the warning :
> > >> NOTE: 8.5 % performance was lost because the PME ranks
> > >>      had less work to do than the PP ranks.
> > >>      You might want to decrease the number of PME ranks
> > >>      or decrease the cut-off and the grid spacing.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I don't know much about Gromacs so I am puzzled.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2014-09-05 14:32 GMT+02:00 Abhi Acharya <abhi117acharya at gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>> From the log files it is clear that out of 48 cores, the 5.0 run had
> 8
> > >>> cores allocated to PME while the 4.6.5 run had 12 cores. This seems
> to
> > >>> have
> > >>> caused a greater load imbalance in case of the 5.0 run.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you notice the last table in both .mdp files, you will notice that
> > the
> > >>> PME spread/gather wall time values for 5.0 is more than double the
> wall
> > >>> time value in case of the 4.6.5.
> > >>>
> > >>> Try running the simulation by explicitly setting the -npme flag as
> 12.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Abhishek Acharya
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:43 PM, David McGiven <
> davidmcgivenn at gmail.com
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks Szilard, here it goes! :
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 4.6.5 : http://pastebin.com/nqBn3FKs
> > >>>> 5.0 : http://pastebin.com/kR4ntHtK
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2014-09-05 12:47 GMT+02:00 Szilárd Páll <pall.szilard at gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> mdrun writes a log file, named md.log by default, which contains
> > among
> > >>>>> other things results of hardware detection and performance
> > >>>>> measurements. The list does not accept attachments, please upload
> it
> > >>>>> somewhere (dropbox, pastebin, etc.) and post a link.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Szilárd
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:37 PM, David McGiven <
> > >>> davidmcgivenn at gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Command line in both cases is :
> > >>>>>> 1st :     grompp -f grompp.mdp -c conf.gro -n index.ndx
> > >>>>>> 2nd :    mdrun -nt 48 -v -c test.out
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Log file you mean the standard output/error ? Attached to the
> email
> > >>> ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2014-09-05 12:30 GMT+02:00 Szilárd Páll <pall.szilard at gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Please post the command lines you used to invoke mdrun as well as
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>> log files of the runs you are comparing.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Szilárd
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:10 PM, David McGiven <
> > >>>> davidmcgivenn at gmail.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Dear Gromacs users,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I just compiled gromacs 5.0 with the same compiler (gcc 4.7.2),
> > >>> same
> > >>>>> OS
> > >>>>>>>> (RHEL 6) same configuration options and basically everything
> > >>> than my
> > >>>>>>>> previous gromacs 4.6.5 compilation and when doing one of our
> > >>> typical
> > >>>>>>>> simulations, I get worst performance.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 4.6.5 does 45 ns/day
> > >>>>>>>> 5.0 does 35 ns/day
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Do you have any idea of what could be happening ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>>>>>> D.
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Gromacs Users mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * Please search the archive at
> > >>>>>>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List
> before
> > >>>>>>> posting!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users
> > >>>> or
> > >>>>>>> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Gromacs Users mailing list
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> * Please search the archive at
> > >>>>>>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List
> before
> > >>>>>>> posting!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > >>>>>>>
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users
> > >>> or
> > >>>>>>> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Gromacs Users mailing list
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Please search the archive at
> > >>>>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> > >>>>> posting!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > >>>>>>
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users
> > >>> or
> > >>>>> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Gromacs Users mailing list
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * Please search the archive at
> > >>>>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> > >>>>> posting!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > >>>>> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users
> > or
> > >>>>> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Gromacs Users mailing list
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * Please search the archive at
> > >>>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> > >>>> posting!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > >>>> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users
> or
> > >>>> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> > >>>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Gromacs Users mailing list
> > >>>
> > >>> * Please search the archive at
> > >>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> > >>> posting!
> > >>>
> > >>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> > >>>
> > >>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > >>> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users
> or
> > >>> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > --
> > > Gromacs Users mailing list
> > >
> > > * Please search the archive at
> > http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> > posting!
> > >
> > > * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> > >
> > > * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > > https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or
> > send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Carsten Kutzner
> > Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry
> > Theoretical and Computational Biophysics
> > Am Fassberg 11, 37077 Goettingen, Germany
> > Tel. +49-551-2012313, Fax: +49-551-2012302
> > http://www.mpibpc.mpg.de/grubmueller/kutzner
> > http://www.mpibpc.mpg.de/grubmueller/sppexa
> >
> > --
> > Gromacs Users mailing list
> >
> > * Please search the archive at
> > http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> > posting!
> >
> > * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> >
> > * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> > https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or
> > send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> >
> --
> Gromacs Users mailing list
>
> * Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> posting!
>
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>
> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or
> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
>
-- 
Gromacs Users mailing list

* Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting!

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists

* For (un)subscribe requests visit
https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.

More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list