[AMBER-Developers] near-final testing

From: case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:04:32 -0400

Thanks to everyone who has been involved in testing the 08apr10 RC. I'd
like to follow up on a few points that come up on the Amber11 Testing wiki

1. Scott: can you try to track down the mtmdtest failure with PGI compilers?
Also, see my questions about bug 130.

2. Jason: For Mac OSX10.6, gnu 4.43: what is the nature of the failure
in parallel sander.RISM.MPI? What is your stack size (that causes the
parallel pmemd.MPI jobs to fail)? What do you mean by "memory overlap"?

3. Jason: if you have a chance, I'd love to see the parallel Amber results
for Ubuntu 9.10, GNU compilers. Once I saw that you were doing this, I
put off my own efforts to test Ubuntu.

4. Dan: can we get a current picture of what cygwin is doing?

5. Dan: as ptraj expert, have you been trying the ptraj_comprehensive
test on 8 threads? (See error reported by Ben on the wiki.)

6. Ben: if you have time, can you see if sander.RISM.MPI is still not being
created with the latest RC? Is there any error at the compile stage?

7. Volodymyr: long term, figuring out why FreeBSD is failing will probably
help uncover bugs in the code. But these don't look like things that can
be easily fixed. Is there a chance that you (or anyone else on the developers
list) could get Wei a login on a BSD machine?

7. Any volunteer: a few trivial things would be great to fix:

  a. debug why intel compilers fail on the tip5p test
  b. We don't expect correct results on the parallel test suite if the number
     of processors equals 1. Can we trap this input with an informative


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Mon Apr 12 2010 - 06:30:02 PDT
Custom Search