MDBenchmark: A toolkit to optimize the performance of molecular dynamics simulations.

Despite the impending flattening of Moore's law, the system size, complexity, and length of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations keep on increasing, thanks to effective code parallelization and optimization combined with algorithmic developments. Going forward, exascale computing poses new challenges to the efficient execution and management of MD simulations. The diversity and rapid developments of hardware architectures, software environments, and MD engines make it necessary that users can easily run benchmarks to optimally set up simulations, both with respect to time-to-solution and overall efficiency. To this end, we have developed the software MDBenchmark to streamline the setup, submission, and analysis of simulation benchmarks and scaling studies. The software design is open and as such not restricted to any specific MD engine or job queuing system. To illustrate the necessity and benefits of running benchmarks and the capabilities of MDBenchmark, we measure the performance of a diverse set of 23 MD simulation systems using GROMACS 2018. We compare the scaling of simulations with the number of nodes for central processing unit (CPU)-only and mixed CPU-graphics processing unit (GPU) nodes and study the performance that can be achieved when running multiple simulations on a single node. In all these cases, we optimize the numbers of message passing interface (MPI) ranks and open multi-processing (OpenMP) threads, which is crucial to maximizing performance. Our results demonstrate the importance of benchmarking for finding the optimal system and hardware specific simulation parameters. Running MD simulations with optimized settings leads to a significant performance increase that reduces the monetary, energetic, and environmental costs of MD simulations.

[1]  Steven J. Plimpton,et al.  Implementing molecular dynamics on hybrid high performance computers - Particle-particle particle-mesh , 2012, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[2]  B. L. de Groot,et al.  CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins , 2016, Nature Methods.

[3]  Yi Wang,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics on CPU and GPU architectures with NAMD. , 2020, The Journal of chemical physics.

[4]  J. P. Grossman,et al.  Biomolecular simulation: a computational microscope for molecular biology. , 2012, Annual review of biophysics.

[5]  V. Hornak,et al.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters , 2006, Proteins.

[6]  G. Hummer,et al.  Optimized molecular dynamics force fields applied to the helix-coil transition of polypeptides. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[7]  Klaus Schulten,et al.  Discovery through the computational microscope. , 2009, Structure.

[8]  Martin Fechner,et al.  Best bang for your buck: GPU nodes for GROMACS biomolecular simulations , 2015, J. Comput. Chem..

[9]  G. Hummer,et al.  Conformation space of a heterodimeric ABC exporter under turnover conditions , 2019, Nature.

[10]  P. Kollman,et al.  How well does a restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) model perform in calculating conformational energies of organic and biological molecules? , 2000 .

[11]  R. Best,et al.  Residue-specific α-helix propensities from molecular simulation. , 2012, Biophysical journal.

[12]  Berk Hess,et al.  Improving efficiency of large time‐scale molecular dynamics simulations of hydrogen‐rich systems , 1999, Journal of computational chemistry.

[13]  Berk Hess,et al.  GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers , 2015 .

[14]  Martin Fechner,et al.  More bang for your buck: Improved use of GPU nodes for GROMACS 2018 , 2019, J. Comput. Chem..

[15]  G. Hummer,et al.  The molecular recognition of phosphatidic acid by an amphipathic helix in Opi1 , 2018, bioRxiv.

[16]  Per Larsson,et al.  MkVsites: A tool for creating GROMACS virtual sites parameters to increase performance in all‐atom molecular dynamics simulations , 2020, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  Jürgen Pleiss,et al.  Systematic benchmarking of large molecular dynamics simulations employing GROMACS on massive multiprocessing facilities , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[18]  R. M. Voorhees,et al.  Structural basis for membrane insertion by the human ER membrane protein complex , 2020, Science.

[19]  Duncan Poole,et al.  Routine Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 2. Explicit Solvent Particle Mesh Ewald. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[20]  Diwakar Shukla,et al.  OpenMM 4: A Reusable, Extensible, Hardware Independent Library for High Performance Molecular Simulation. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[21]  R. Dror,et al.  Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field , 2010, Proteins.

[22]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[23]  Sharon C. Glotzer,et al.  HOOMD-blue: A Python package for high-performance molecular dynamics and hard particle Monte Carlo simulations , 2013 .

[24]  G. Hummer,et al.  Dynamic cluster formation determines viscosity and diffusion in dense protein solutions , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  M J Harvey,et al.  ACEMD: Accelerating Biomolecular Dynamics in the Microsecond Time Scale. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[26]  John D. Hunter,et al.  Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[27]  Joel Nothman,et al.  SciPy 1.0-Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python , 2019, ArXiv.

[28]  G. Hummer,et al.  In situ structural analysis of SARS-CoV-2 spike reveals flexibility mediated by three hinges , 2020, Science.

[29]  Carsten Kutzner,et al.  GROMACS 4:  Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[30]  Oliver Beckstein,et al.  MDAnalysis: A toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[31]  C. Dobson,et al.  Protein Dynamics: Moore's Law in Molecular Biology , 2011, Current Biology.

[32]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  The GROMOS96 benchmarks for molecular simulation , 2000 .

[33]  Paul Robustelli,et al.  Water dispersion interactions strongly influence simulated structural properties of disordered protein states. , 2015, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[34]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Optimization of the additive CHARMM all-atom protein force field targeting improved sampling of the backbone φ, ψ and side-chain χ(1) and χ(2) dihedral angles. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[35]  Helgi I. Ingólfsson,et al.  Martini straight: Boosting performance using a shorter cutoff and GPUs , 2016, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[36]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[37]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..