<div class="gmail_quote">Dear Paolo,<br><br>2009/9/29 Paolo Giannozzi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:giannozz@democritos.it">giannozz@democritos.it</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Sep 29, 2009, at 17:12 , Javier Fuhr wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The parallelization is done to all processes (nproc), and<br>
if I understand correctly the sum should be performed<br>
over all processes. Looking better at the different<br>
parallelizations, I think the correct way is to replace,<br>
in mm_dispersion.f90, intra_pool_comm by world_comm<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I think you are (almost) right. "image" parallelization, useful<br>
for NEB calculations, implies different atomic positions on<br>
different groups of processors. So the correct communicator<br>
is "intra_image_comm", containing nproc_image processors.<br>
Attached the (hopefully) correct Modules/mm_dispersion.f90.<br>
Thank you for reporting this bug and its (quasi-)fix <br></blockquote><div><br>i'm not expert in parallelization, but it seems to me that the processor<br>index "mpime" should be replaced by "me_image" if we use the <br>
"intra_image_comm" communicator.<br>Is it correct?<br><br>daniel <br></div></div><br>-- <br> ----------------------------------<br><br> Daniel Forrer<br> Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche<br> Universitą degli Studi di Padova<br>
V. Marzolo 1, Padova<br> <br> ----------------------------------<br>