Dear Iurii,
By changing the threshold values you mentioned, nscf calculation finished
(no "cholesky" error), but there is divergence in computing "chi". Please
find the link below. All input and output files are attached.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 4:16 PM Lorenzo Paulatto wrote:
>
> > Are the algorithms appeared in these source code files exactly
> > equivalent or not? If they are exactly equivalent, why not create a
> > common function/library for this purpose?
> Great idea !
> Please go on and do it.
I re-checked
Dear Anibal,
It is very likely that you are running out of memory.
Best,
Michal Krompiec
Merck KGaA
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 13:42, Anibal Thiago Bezerra <
anibal.beze...@unifal-mg.edu.br> wrote:
> Dear Quantum Espresso Users and Developers,
>
> I'm using simple.x to get the dielectric function
Dear Quantum Espresso Users and Developers,
I'm using simple.x to get the dielectric function for a gold-Aluminium
alloy. With pure systems (Au and Al), I had no problems at all. For the
alloy, the supercell has 12 atoms and the calculation ran with the
parameters similar to the ones in the
'nscf' calculations also compute the Fermi energy and occupations. If the
number of bands (nbnd) you specify is smaller than the number of occupied
bands, you get an error.
Paolo
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:29 AM SHIVANI SAINI
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am trying to calculate the electronic
Dear Saini,
Have you tried increasing the k-points grid? At least doubled relative to
the SCF one. For instance, if you have run an SCF calculation with a
10x10x10 grid, then try to use 20x20x20 in your NSCF run.
Or else you could also change the 'tetrahedra' occupations into the
gaussian just
https://gitlab.com/QEF/q-e/-/issues/214
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:02 AM Kefan Chen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm compiling QE-v6.6 on my Centos 8 machine. This machine has a QE-v6.5
> running normally.
>
> Here's the error info I got during 'make all':
>
> mpif90 -g -o average.x \
> average.o
Are the algorithms appeared in these source code files exactly
equivalent or not? If they are exactly equivalent, why not create a
common function/library for this purpose?
Great idea !
Please go on and do it.
kind regards
--
Lorenzo Paulatto - Paris
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:56 PM Nicola Marzari wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2020 09:47, Hongyi Zhao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I try to figure out the Fermi level determination algorithm in q-e but
> > still not so clear on the procedure implemented currently.
> >
> > Any hints for this question?
> >
>
>
Hi there,
I'm compiling QE-v6.6 on my Centos 8 machine. This machine has a QE-v6.5
running normally.
Here's the error info I got during 'make all':
mpif90 -g -o average.x \
average.o libpp.a ../../PW/src/libpw.a ../../Modules/libqemod.a
../../upflib/libupf.a ../../KS_Solvers/libks_solvers.a
On 15/09/2020 09:47, Hongyi Zhao wrote:
Hi,
I try to figure out the Fermi level determination algorithm in q-e but
still not so clear on the procedure implemented currently.
Any hints for this question?
bisection method
--
Hi,
I try to figure out the Fermi level determination algorithm in q-e but
still not so clear on the procedure implemented currently.
Any hints for this question?
Regards,
--
Hongyi Zhao
___
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX
12 matches
Mail list logo