AMBER12 QM/MM: is d-orbital code going to be parallelized?
2012-05-10 21:15
651 查看
his message: [ Message body ] [ More
options (top, bottom) ]
Related messages: [ Next message ] [ Previous
message ] [ In reply to ] [ Next
in thread ] [ Replies ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by
thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
[ by messages with attachments ]
From: filip fratev <filipfratev.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Hi,
I made an additional test with larger (more realistic) QM region.
The QM region consist of 164 atoms (ATP,Mg2+ and several Myosin residues);6-31g/rhf; 3 minimization steps:
TeraChem 1GPU=231.65sec; 2GPU's=129.1sec (1.8x, but will be around 2x after 100 steps)
Gaussian 4
cores .4.6Ghz= 1321.2sec;
Thus we have 10.2x gain in
performance for that system and the Amber-TeraChem link works well. I run only 3 steps and if we run 100 the speed up will be likely 15x. I did mistake in first
test and now the results between TeraChem and Gaussian are very similar.
Hope that this
will help to those that
interest in QM/MM simulations with Amber
and TeraChem!
All the best,
Filip
________________________________
From: filip fratev <filipfratev.yahoo.com>
To: AMBER Mailing List <amber.ambermd.org>
Cc: Andreas Goetz <agoetz.sdsc.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AMBER] AMBER12 QM/MM: is d-orbital code going to be parallelized?
Dear Prof. Case
and Andreas,
Thank you for your responses!
I use the last TeraChem version - 1.5.
According to Amber 12 manual there is no limitations, as such for GAMMES, for
electronic embedding in TeraChem. Are you sure that with this version it is
possible only mechanical embedding or I should I ask Petachem developers about
that?
�
I performed some tests using TeraChem and
Gaussian as external programs to assess mainly the GPU speed up by TeraChem. I
used two GTX580 3GB cards and 2600K.4.6Ghz CPU. Some results and questions:
�
1) Indeed all Amber tests passed.
2) Secondly I tested the example from Tutorial
A2. Both programs work well with Amber link and gave very similar results using
various parameters. In this test (only 12 QM atoms) Gaussian was faster than
TeraChem (TC) for minimization. In the case of MD simulation I observed only
20% boost in the performance using TC. Moreover, TC was faster with one GPU
instead of two (30% slower with 2 GPU's). This is likely due to the small
system size. In fact using Gaussian I was not able to achieve some good
CPU-core scale too.
3) Further I performed some more realistic tests
using Myosin protein (MM) + ATP-Mg2+ (QM). The system is around 116K atoms
solvated. Here TeraChem had a clear advantage but not exactly what I expected. During
the 20 steps minimization TC was 4.75x faster than Gaussian (all cores) and
during MD 4.3x. It is indeed impressive because for only 20 steps MD (it was
6-31G, but I do not remember b3lyp or something else) it took 705sec using Gaussian
and only 163sec by TeraChem; 4,9ps vs 21.2ps/day. Here again the GPU scale is
the main problem - the second GPU adds only 20% speed up. If I use only
TeraChem for optimization it is 100%, thus one can expect around 8 x speeds up.
What could be the problem? The software link or
something else? ��
��
I tested (not only now) the GPU speed up when
use only TeraChem for optimization or just SP and it is exactly 2x for two
GPU's, doesn't matter for 30 or 150 atoms. What are your advices and in general
is it possible to be improved GPU speed up for the Amber-TeraChem combination?
�
I am not expert in QM/MM calculations that's
why would like to ask you what semi-empirical method in Amber will best fit for
ATP-Mg2+ system and what is the best way, in your opinion, to describe the
energy difference of �ATP-Mg2+ binding if
mutations are present in the ATP binding pocket?
�
All the best,
Filip
________________________________
From: Andreas Goetz <agoetz.sdsc.edu>
To: AMBER Mailing List <amber.ambermd.org>
Cc: filip fratev <filipfratev.yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [AMBER] AMBER12 QM/MM: is d-orbital code going to be parallelized?
On Apr 16, 2012, at 1:08 PM, David A Case wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012, filip fratev wrote:
>
>> I'd like to extend the question. According to
>> the Amber 12 manual it is possible to perform QM/MM using TeraChem software
>> (Cuda software). However, developers of the TeraChem ensured me that this not
>> possible at the moment and probably will be possible in June.
>
> What happens when you try such calculations?� In particular, do the TeraChem
> test calculations work?� (See, e.g.� amber12/test/qmmm_EXTERN/QMMM_MD_TeraChem).
>
>> Thus, which programs are available at the
>> moment for QM/MM calculations?
>
> Please see Section 3.7 of the Amber12 Reference Manual.
>
> ....dac
For electronic embedding you need a TeraChem version that supports external point charge electric fields. You can try mechanical embedding if this fits your needs. This should work also with earlier versions of TeraChem. Check if following test works:
$AMBERHOME/test/qmmm_EXTERN/QMMM_MD_TeraChem/Run.nma-spcfw-15.hf_sto-3g.MechEm
Be aware that I have not extensively tested mechanical embedding.
If you are using the interface to external QM programs, any feedback is appreciated.
All the best,
Andy
options (top, bottom) ]
Related messages: [ Next message ] [ Previous
message ] [ In reply to ] [ Next
in thread ] [ Replies ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by
thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
[ by messages with attachments ]
From: filip fratev <filipfratev.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Hi,
I made an additional test with larger (more realistic) QM region.
The QM region consist of 164 atoms (ATP,Mg2+ and several Myosin residues);6-31g/rhf; 3 minimization steps:
TeraChem 1GPU=231.65sec; 2GPU's=129.1sec (1.8x, but will be around 2x after 100 steps)
Gaussian 4
cores .4.6Ghz= 1321.2sec;
Thus we have 10.2x gain in
performance for that system and the Amber-TeraChem link works well. I run only 3 steps and if we run 100 the speed up will be likely 15x. I did mistake in first
test and now the results between TeraChem and Gaussian are very similar.
Hope that this
will help to those that
interest in QM/MM simulations with Amber
and TeraChem!
All the best,
Filip
________________________________
From: filip fratev <filipfratev.yahoo.com>
To: AMBER Mailing List <amber.ambermd.org>
Cc: Andreas Goetz <agoetz.sdsc.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AMBER] AMBER12 QM/MM: is d-orbital code going to be parallelized?
Dear Prof. Case
and Andreas,
Thank you for your responses!
I use the last TeraChem version - 1.5.
According to Amber 12 manual there is no limitations, as such for GAMMES, for
electronic embedding in TeraChem. Are you sure that with this version it is
possible only mechanical embedding or I should I ask Petachem developers about
that?
�
I performed some tests using TeraChem and
Gaussian as external programs to assess mainly the GPU speed up by TeraChem. I
used two GTX580 3GB cards and 2600K.4.6Ghz CPU. Some results and questions:
�
1) Indeed all Amber tests passed.
2) Secondly I tested the example from Tutorial
A2. Both programs work well with Amber link and gave very similar results using
various parameters. In this test (only 12 QM atoms) Gaussian was faster than
TeraChem (TC) for minimization. In the case of MD simulation I observed only
20% boost in the performance using TC. Moreover, TC was faster with one GPU
instead of two (30% slower with 2 GPU's). This is likely due to the small
system size. In fact using Gaussian I was not able to achieve some good
CPU-core scale too.
3) Further I performed some more realistic tests
using Myosin protein (MM) + ATP-Mg2+ (QM). The system is around 116K atoms
solvated. Here TeraChem had a clear advantage but not exactly what I expected. During
the 20 steps minimization TC was 4.75x faster than Gaussian (all cores) and
during MD 4.3x. It is indeed impressive because for only 20 steps MD (it was
6-31G, but I do not remember b3lyp or something else) it took 705sec using Gaussian
and only 163sec by TeraChem; 4,9ps vs 21.2ps/day. Here again the GPU scale is
the main problem - the second GPU adds only 20% speed up. If I use only
TeraChem for optimization it is 100%, thus one can expect around 8 x speeds up.
What could be the problem? The software link or
something else? ��
��
I tested (not only now) the GPU speed up when
use only TeraChem for optimization or just SP and it is exactly 2x for two
GPU's, doesn't matter for 30 or 150 atoms. What are your advices and in general
is it possible to be improved GPU speed up for the Amber-TeraChem combination?
�
I am not expert in QM/MM calculations that's
why would like to ask you what semi-empirical method in Amber will best fit for
ATP-Mg2+ system and what is the best way, in your opinion, to describe the
energy difference of �ATP-Mg2+ binding if
mutations are present in the ATP binding pocket?
�
All the best,
Filip
________________________________
From: Andreas Goetz <agoetz.sdsc.edu>
To: AMBER Mailing List <amber.ambermd.org>
Cc: filip fratev <filipfratev.yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [AMBER] AMBER12 QM/MM: is d-orbital code going to be parallelized?
On Apr 16, 2012, at 1:08 PM, David A Case wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012, filip fratev wrote:
>
>> I'd like to extend the question. According to
>> the Amber 12 manual it is possible to perform QM/MM using TeraChem software
>> (Cuda software). However, developers of the TeraChem ensured me that this not
>> possible at the moment and probably will be possible in June.
>
> What happens when you try such calculations?� In particular, do the TeraChem
> test calculations work?� (See, e.g.� amber12/test/qmmm_EXTERN/QMMM_MD_TeraChem).
>
>> Thus, which programs are available at the
>> moment for QM/MM calculations?
>
> Please see Section 3.7 of the Amber12 Reference Manual.
>
> ....dac
For electronic embedding you need a TeraChem version that supports external point charge electric fields. You can try mechanical embedding if this fits your needs. This should work also with earlier versions of TeraChem. Check if following test works:
$AMBERHOME/test/qmmm_EXTERN/QMMM_MD_TeraChem/Run.nma-spcfw-15.hf_sto-3g.MechEm
Be aware that I have not extensively tested mechanical embedding.
If you are using the interface to external QM programs, any feedback is appreciated.
All the best,
Andy
-- Dr. Andreas W. Goetz Assistant Project Scientist San Diego Supercomputer Center Tel� : +1-858-822-4771 Email: agoetz.sdsc.edu Web� : www.awgoetz.de _______________________________________________ AMBER mailing list AMBER.ambermd.org http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber _______________________________________________ AMBER mailing list AMBER.ambermd.org http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
相关文章推荐
- This is Huge! PhysBAM code is going to be released?
- Ubuntu 16.04 安装ROS kinetic提示Depends: ros-kinetic-desktop but it is not going to be installed
- Is Good Code Enough for a Project to Be Successful?
- 发布应用到App Store问题:The CodeResources file is missing and it must be a symbolic link to _CodeSignature
- Windows 10 is going to be the last major revision of the operating system.
- Depends:libreoffice-base but it is not going to be installed
- build-essential : Depends: libc6-dev but it is not going to be installed or libc-dev 解决办法
- Fryer: CIF-SS hockey playoffs is going to be difficult
- Code is to be happy
- libpng12-dev : Depends: libpng12-0 (= 1.2.54-1ubuntu1) but 1.2.54-1ubuntu1k1 is to be installed
- Solution to "The breakpoint will not currently be hit. The source code is different from the original version."
- This event supports the .NET Framework infrastructure and is not intended to be used directly from your code?继承自VScrollbar的自定义winform控件,某些事件不触发的问题(Winform控件开发学习)
- The best way to be "right once" is to have the ability to envision what things are going to look like three weeks, three months
- Error (10309): VHDL Interface Declaration error in keyboard.vhd(63): interface object "scan_code" of mode out cannot be read. Change object mode to bu
- "-fembed-bitcode is not supported on versions of iOS prior to 6.0" 错误
- This file requires _WIN32_WINNT to be #defined at least to 0x0403. Value 0x0501 or higher is recomme
- Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be.
- The breakpoint will not currently be hit. The source code is different from the original version
- to be or not to be this is a question
- Entity Framework Code-First(12):Configure One-to-Many