There may be some system dependencies on actual access to the executable.
In old systems for sure, the executable would be paged in from disk as
needed, so overwriting could cause grief (and often was not permitted -
there are various ways this was handled, and it was filesystem/os
dependent). If I were doing this, just to insure sanity, I would install in
a different directory and switch when nothing is up. I have not looked at
this issue for 20 years, but better safe than sorry is my basic attitude.
Regards - Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lachele Foley" <lfoley.ccrc.uga.edu>
To: "AMBER Developers Mailing List" <amber-developers.ambermd.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:14 PM
Subject: [AMBER-Developers] Update question
I'm pretty sure the answer to this is "it shouldn't cause trouble", but a
user asked me, so I want to be sure.
Let's say someone is running a really long job using amber11's sander or
pmemd or some other routine likely to be run for a really long time. Is
there any chance that updating amber11 will cause any trouble for that run?
I think no. I think these programs, like most others, find all the data
they need at the start, and the executable is loaded into active memory, and
the version of the program on the disk is ignored thereafter until the
program is called again. Yes? No?
:-) Lachele
--
B. Lachele Foley, PhD '92,'02
Assistant Research Scientist
Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, UGA
706-542-0263
lfoley.ccrc.uga.edu
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Mar 06 2009 - 01:25:57 PST
