<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>As Roland noted, there was some work done at ORNL. Teemu's original plan embraced the possibility of parallel analysis, but there's no implementation in master branch.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't have a clear picture of a use case that has enough need of compute that the per-frame workload would not be dominated by overheads from I/O and the analysis workflow runner. Peter Kasson suggested local pressure some time (IIRC). Perhaps there are some goodness-of-fit post-simulation analyses for SAXS/SANS/CryoEM that might motivate?</div><div><br></div><div>Mark<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:46 PM Kutzner, Carsten <<a href="mailto:ckutzne@gwdg.de">ckutzne@gwdg.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
what is the status of using any type of parallelism to speed<br>
up trajectory analysis tools?<br>
<br>
I guess OpenMP should be no problem, but what about MPI?<br>
<br>
What are the plans here / what would be preferred in future<br>
patches?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
Carsten<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Gromacs Developers mailing list<br>
<br>
* Please search the archive at <a href="http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-developers_List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-developers_List</a> before posting!<br>
<br>
* Can't post? Read <a href="http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists</a><br>
<br>
* For (un)subscribe requests visit<br>
<a href="https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-developers" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-developers</a> or send a mail to <a href="mailto:gmx-developers-request@gromacs.org" target="_blank">gmx-developers-request@gromacs.org</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>