Page Comparison

Submission handling for slow compute spec adding

David

• JH: will add thread-pool submission of compute specs internally to QCSubmit

Local optimizations

Trevor

• TG: added local optimization script as a PR to QCSubmit

• DD: I’ll review! This is an important debug pathway for users we’ll want to support

UCI compute

Trevor

• Need to switch to launching one manager per job, can’t run manager on head node (too much memory use, admins don’t like it)

• HPC3 now has an openforcefield user that uses a guest QOS (pre-empt with core limit)

New datasets

• DD: will review Genentech dataset

• PB: Protomers/tautomers reviewed, ready for merge

• PB: working on another Genentech set; getting an error I’m not sure about

  • in putting together submission, separating out molecules with rotors greater than 3 for fragmentation; is this a reasonable approach here?

  • JH: Yes, that should work well; there’s also a module/filter for this in QCSubmit

    • might not have all the nuance needed; makes sense to create an issue on QCSubmit

  • PB: Silicon Therapeutics dataset, doesn’t have CMILES

    • JH: Will need to use OpenEye locally to generate; predates existing process

• JH: ANI1x, not really any demand at this time, and so may not make sense to submit

  • DD: agreed; we’ll let it sit, can always submit later if demand resurges

• TG: Hessians/wfn; Tobias wants to do chemical perception stuff, so there is demand for this now

  • Does QCSubmit do Hessians?

    • JH: Results class in QCSubmit that can pull out existing dataset, make a new one, add Hessian spec, make the submission; probably will take a while

    • JH: Will point you to a test that does something like this, can give you assistance in preparing

  • JH: How much of the wavefunction does Tobias need?

    • TG: He says he needs the full wavefunction, but we’ll see if what we can give him is enough to work with.

    • JH: I think the other bits that were broken in psi4 are fixed; can now get everything instead of just “orbitals and eigenvalues”; may be worth waiting a little bit and try to get “all”

    • TG: This is exploratory, so willing to go with what we have now? But definitely interested if we can get “all” working

      • Just need to see if there’s a release since then; do local testing

• DD: Compute expansion to PEPCONF WB37X/6-31G*

  • TG: Will be expensive, may want to route to its own compute tag

    • DD: We’ll want this run at “normal” priority, and consider a dedicated compute tag for John to control

• BP: Can stand up a manager on local VT clusters, use the scavenger queue (pre-emptible, low priority); could add in openff compute tag below tags used by MolSSI to compute jobs

  • Can give manager multiple compute tags; listed in order of priority

  • Opens up possibilities for advanced routing of tasks

STANDARDSv3

Trevor

• Seeded the approach, got a lot of good feedback, but now need to resolve

  • Will review feedback, resolve points of contention

  • DD: we’ll hold final discussion and a laying on of hands at next week’s call

• PB: how much work will this put on submitters after adoption?

  • TG: the standards largely capture practices we are already doing or want to do; the intention is that these standards define the desired behavior of e.g. QCSubmit, so that users simply need to use QCSubmit to comply with most of the STANDARDS

• TG: Do we adopt then implement? Or implement then adopt?

  • JH: I think once it’s adopted, can move quickly to ensure it has clear implementation

  • [decision] we’ll adopt, then implement quickly after

Error cycling nuance

David

• DD: What kind of nuance should we add to error cycling? Limited number of retries? Certain error types we don’t restart?

  • JH: Sounds like limited number of retries makes sense to handle at the manager or server level

  • TG: We are seeing retries for task result sends in the manager; could use a similar mechanism for this

  • DD: will create an issue for retries at the manager level; wouldn’t require task specs to know anything about retries; could eliminate need for much error cycling

• TG: Can we use psi4’s native optimizer instead of geomeTRIC?

  • BP: not yet, but this is aspirational

  • Not yet possible to slot in other optimizers, and may not be for a while

Enforced c1 symmetry

Josh

• This is only an issue for old datasets, since we handle specifying this on submission for new ones

  • This looks like it will be merged really soon!

Wavefunction visualizer

Josh

• fortecubeview?

  • Github link macro
    link https://github.com/evangelistalab/fortecubeview

• DD: could make a place for this in the QCFractal user interface; would be worth experimenting with this and perhaps other visualizer candidates

• JH: Tried giving it a play and loading the wavefunction data; did hit some segfaults, though