Dear Stephano,
I reduced diago_thr_init to 1.0D-13 but it changed nothing to the first 
estimated scf accuracy.:

   Initial potential from superposition of free atoms
     a scf correction to at. rho is read 
from./calcforces_QE/step0000/initialization/initial_bassin/relax//results/dbed.relax.save/rho.in
     negative rho (up, down):  1.432E-02 0.000E+00
     Starting wfcs from file
     Checking if some PAW data can be deallocated...
       PAW data deallocated on    4 nodes for type:  1
       PAW data deallocated on   32 nodes for type:  2
       PAW data deallocated on   35 nodes for type:  3
     total cpu time spent up to now is       29.8 secs
     Self-consistent Calculation
     iteration #  1     ecut=    58.00 Ry     beta= 0.10
     Davidson diagonalization with overlap
     c_bands:  5 eigenvalues not converged
     ethr =  1.00E-13,  avg # of iterations = 40.0
     negative rho (up, down):  1.432E-02 0.000E+00
     total cpu time spent up to now is      813.3 secs
     total energy              =  -11390.75602693 Ry
     Harris-Foulkes estimate   =  -11390.75013390 Ry
     estimated scf accuracy    <       0.00021610 Ry
     iteration #  2     ecut=    58.00 Ry     beta= 0.10
     Davidson diagonalization with overlap
     ethr =  2.16E-08,  avg # of iterations =  1.0
... and the rest of the file is the same as the qe.0002.out I send.

Please note that I start from the wfcs of exactely the same configuration and 
parameters by using startingwfc='file',
but I do not use startingpot='file'.
Instead I have activated input_drho='rho.in'
This 'rho.in' file is a copy of the file 'rho.out' that have been created by 
activating the parameter input_drho='rho.out'.
This trick is done because sometimes, the atomic positions have a small 
variation (but not in this case).

Please note that I already tried this trick on smaller systems plenty of times 
and I never saw this problem,
this is why I wonder if it is a problem of the system size or of the PAW pseudo 
for wich for example the becsum couldbe bad performed when some PAW data are 
deallocated:
" Checking if some PAW data can be deallocated...
       PAW data deallocated on    4 nodes for type:  1
       PAW data deallocated on   32 nodes for type:  2
       PAW data deallocated on   35 nodes for type:  3"


Regards,

Antoine Jay
LAAS-CNRS
Toulouse, France








Le Dimanche, Août 16, 2020 23:20 CEST, Stefano de Gironcoli <[email protected]> 
a écrit:
  
6.d-9 is still too large.. it should be something like 1d-13 to aim at a 
smaller scf estimate.
are you really starting from the scf charge and wfcs of the same conficuration ?
stefanoOn 16/08/20 22:05, Antoine Jay wrote:Dear Stephano,
adding diago_thr_int=1.0D-8 does not change the first conv_thr (exept the 
average#of iterations)
As you said, the first value 1.0D-2 is detected to  be too large and is updated 
to 6.0D-9 so I don't see why changing manually the first value would change 
something if it is already automatically changed...

Antoine Jay
LAAS-CNRS
Toulouse, France

Le Samedi, Août 15, 2020 17:10 CEST, Stefano de Gironcoli <[email protected]> a 
écrit:
  
Hi Antoine,
  don't know exactly why you get this result but one thing you can try is to 
set diag_thr_init ~ conv_thr/Nelec/10 so the first diagonalization is pushed 
tighter (if the wfcs are already very good it should not take too many 
iterations) and the computed dr2 estimate should be more faithful
  now diag_thr_int is 1.d-2 then updated to 6.e-9 which is consistent with 
conv_thr ~6.d-5...
  idk. you can try
  stefano
  On 14/08/20 17:09, Antoine Jay wrote:Dear all,

I'am doing two consecutive scf calculations with exactly the same structure and 
parameters by calling qe6.5 as a library (attached output files).
For the second call, I use the options:
startingwfc='file' and input_rho ='rho.in'
where these inputs are the converged wfc1.dat and charge-density.dat of the 
first step.
Here I face two problems:

-I expected that the initial scf accuracy is 10^-11 as obtained at the end of 
the first step, but it is only 10^-4.
How is it possible to explain such a decrease? I generally loose only 2 orders 
of magnitude by doing this.

-Even with less scf iterations, the cpu time is greater.
Is it possible that some extra memory is allocated by qe when input rho and wfc 
are asked, and not desallocated?

Note that until now, I have these troubles only when I use paw pseudopotentials 
on big systems.

Regards,

Antoine Jay
LAAS-CNRS
Toulouse France





  _______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso)
users mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users


  _______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso)
users mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users


 
_______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso)
users mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to