[phenixbb] Speeding direct summation ?

[Tim Gruene]

Dear Clement,

as far as I understand, SHELXL is compiled against the Intel FFT
library. Before, SHELXL used direct summation. If there was any
noticeable difference, I am sure George Sheldrich would not have taken
this step, as he would have had to expect a flood of complaints. My
guess is that the difference is not because of the difference between
FFT and SHELXL.

Best regards,
Tim

On 11/02/2018 05:01 PM, Clement Degut wrote:
> Hi,
> I have (very) high resolution data, for which direct summation method
> seems to give significantly better map than FFT (i.e. visible hydrogen
> vs not).
> My main problem is that refinement got from quite slow, to barely not
> really possible to handle slow.
> I have 2 question from that :
> Am I looking at an artifact ? Meaning should at this resolution (0.84A
> for CC1/2 at 30% and good overall statistics) see extreme difference
> between map quality with direct summation vs FFT ?
> And if yes, can I speed the process compiling phenix with openMP on our
> cluster ? Or shoul I just become patient ?
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> Clément
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> phenixbb mailing list
> phenixbb at phenix-online.org
> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
> Unsubscribe: phenixbb-leave at phenix-online.org
> 

-- 
--
Paul Scherrer Institut
Tim Gruene
- persoenlich -
OSUA/204
Forschungsstrasse 111
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
phone: +41 (0)56 310 5297

GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/attachments/20181102/5c318c2e/attachment.asc>