Giovanni Cantele wrote: > Can it be due to wrong settings of my cluster?
there is no evidence that anything is wrong in your clusters (or more wrong than in the average cluster). I don't see any reason why the new version should be slower than the old one. I never noticed what you report. Not that I trust benchmarks. Years ago, on a IBM 320h machine, I found a case in which the addition of a single unused variable reproducibly increased the cpu time from 27' to 30'. I have also seen a case in which the same executable, on the same empty machine, had random 10-15% variations in the execution time for no apparent reason. About parallel distributed diagonalization: the optimal number of processors used to be selected at run time, but it was slow and not always accurate. Since it was found that in most cases parallel diagonalization was faster or not worse than the serial one, it was chosen as default. Of course it is impossible to choose defaults that are optimal for everybody. Paolo -- Paolo Giannozzi, Democritos and University of Udine, Italy
