<div dir="ltr">Hi Dev Rana,<div><br></div><div>You are usign the GPW method, so you need and your are using pseudopotentials for the atoms. In the KIND section of each atom class, you select the POTENTIAL i.e. the pseudo potential. The number after the "q" means the number of valence electrons explicitly computed. So for Cu is q-11 and for C is q-4: 62*11 + 4 = 686... this information also is printed in the output, before the SCF cycles, where you can check this,</div><div><br></div><div>Regards - Lucas</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El jue, 22 sept 2022 a las 15:09, Dev Rana (<<a href="mailto:dev.rana3@gmail.com">dev.rana3@gmail.com</a>>) escribió:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi lucas,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for this. This definitely speeds things up.</div><div><br></div><div>I feel like I'm missing something in your explanation. You say that 62 Cu + 1 C = 686 electrons total. Cu has 29 electrons * 62 Cu atoms = 1798. 1 C = 6 electrons. So This should be 1802. With roughly half occupied = 901 and 20% of that is still roughly 200. I agree that 200 is too much - but how you obtained 70 is a bit confusing to me.</div><div><br></div><div>Could you explain how you reached your conclusion?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!<br><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto" class="gmail_attr">On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 7:37:56 PM UTC-4 Lucas Lodeiro wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hello Rev Rana,<div><br></div><div>From your input, I see 2 thing that could improve your calculation. First you use a CUTOFF of 600 and a REL_CUTOFF of 250. This is a little weird to me... usually REL_CUTOFF is around 60.... using higher values will slow down your calculation without a real improvement over the calculation results. Do you do a convergence study of these parameters?</div><div>Second, you are adding 200 MOs to your calculation... Obviously you need some virtual orbitals to use the smearing, but the greater the number of these, the slower the calculation is. So, 200 is in my opinion too much. Your system has 62 Cu and 1 C atoms, with 686 electrons in total, this is 343 occupied orbitals (only as a mental exercise). Usually adding 20% more orbitals is enough. so adding just 70 orbitals would be sufficient, and make your calculations faster.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards - Lucas</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El lun, 25 jul 2022 a las 20:01, Dev Rana (<<a rel="nofollow">dev....@gmail.com</a>>) escribió:<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello,<div><br></div><div>I'm having some trouble conducting an MD simulation. Each SCF iteration takes about 100-200 seconds taking about 15-30 iterations per MD step. Could someone experienced take a look at my input file to see if there is any input which could be added/removed to increase speed? I've attached my restart file containing all information. </div><div><br></div><div>I'm using a computing node with openMPI OMP threads set to 2, and 64 cores on a single exclusive node (no multi-node delays). </div><div><br></div><div>Best Regards,<br>Devyesh Rana</div>
<p></p></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
-- <br></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a rel="nofollow">cp2k+uns...@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/285a3ca8-132d-479a-b0e6-edcd98c899f5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/285a3ca8-132d-479a-b0e6-edcd98c899f5n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:cp2k+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp2k+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/a6c9cc14-476f-4e41-89c6-b849814bf96an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/a6c9cc14-476f-4e41-89c6-b849814bf96an%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:cp2k+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">cp2k+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/CAOFT4PJEW1zTdALMZ29XXrPTQ0zXja2AWRFTiRPTv%3DhHgfamdw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/CAOFT4PJEW1zTdALMZ29XXrPTQ0zXja2AWRFTiRPTv%3DhHgfamdw%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />