You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I noticed that adcc.set_n_threads() doesn't seem to affect the number of threads, though adcc.get_n_threads() gives the number of threads setup.
Just a curious question, how efficacy (speed) of adcc is as compared to that in QChem?
Kind regards,
Evgeniy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
what lead you to the conclusion that set_n_threads(num_threads) does not affect the number of threads? adcc should definitely run in parallel setting that flag, at least for the officially deployed versions 😄
We did some speed comparisons when we wrote the paper (I think it's in the SI), but have since improved performance of some routines by a bit, but I don't have any benchmarks at hand.
many thanks for your response! Concerning the number of threads, I meant that I noticed (when monitoring an adcc job with top) that adcc always runs (at least in my case) with the maximum available number of threads (CPUs) despite setting set_n_threads() to a particular (less than maximum) number of threads.
I also noticed (again using top) that my addc job (the python process) is always in "S" (interruptible sleep) state. Is that normal?
Hello,
I noticed that adcc.set_n_threads() doesn't seem to affect the number of threads, though adcc.get_n_threads() gives the number of threads setup.
Just a curious question, how efficacy (speed) of adcc is as compared to that in QChem?
Kind regards,
Evgeniy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: