Dave -
I suppose I would be fine with it being posted as "unsupported" on our
site,
per your recommendations below. I gather Mengjuei has contacts with apple
if we need to discuss this with them? At any rate, if you want to just
post
it on the site with disclaimers, that would be great. I can post an
annoucement on the reflector, or you or Mengjuei can, as you prefer (or we
can be quiet about it, but it would seem appropriate to at least note that
it is out there).
Thanks much - Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Case" <case.scripps.edu>
To: <amber-developers.scripps.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: amber-developers: Apple's feed back for amber.
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005, Robert Duke wrote:
>
>> Okay, I looked at the apple G5 pmemd performance optimizations...
>> There are significant changes
>> everywhere in the 9 codebase, and adapting this stuff to 9 will
probably
>> be
>> nontrivial. I would recommend we let apple support this level of patch
>> themselves, releasing it on their applications website or whatever;
>
> Sounds fine to me. We did recently post a "efficiency patch" for
Itanium2
> that was processor-specific. But in that case, we have Roberto to
provide
> support for it. (And here as well, the transition to Amber 9 will be
> non-trivial....)
>
> Whether we post this on our site, or just have a link to Apple's site,
we
> should definitely indicate that this is unsupported...if people have
> problems,
> they will probably just be directed to revert to the "real" pmemd code.
> On the other hand, there are some very experienced Amber people out
there
> who
> have access to G5 clusters, and if we can make their simulations faster,
> that
> would be a Good Thing.
>
> ...dac
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 05 2006 - 23:49:54 PDT
