Re: amber-developers: Testing Parallel

From: David A. Case <>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:12:08 -0700

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008, Lachele Foley wrote:

> Ok... I used my excessive C wrapper to get around the quote thing. Using
> block=true has three advantages over the interactive method (for me --
> neither is really -better-): [1] I get nice, neat, individualized output
> from the scheduler in each test directory; [2] it tests the system in a
> manner very close to how the users will be running; [3] I only have to run
> one set of tests (rather than test amber parallel and then test submission
> to queue).

Well, score one for perisitence! Can you post the final wrapper you came up
with (again)? Maybe we can get a web page up for people with similar

> possible FAILURE: check out.0.dif
> /scratch2/sysadmin_test/amber10/test/softcore/complex
> 77c77
> < Total charge of 0.1305 removed
> ---
> > Total charge of ************ removed
> ---------------------------------------

This is actually somewhat disconcerting...looks like a problem with gfortran,
but one that doesn't seem to have other bad consequences. I'll get Thomas
to look at this when he returns from Germany.

Received on Fri Apr 18 2008 - 21:19:37 PDT
Custom Search