Best bang for your buck: GPU nodes for GROMACS biomolecular simulations

The molecular dynamics simulation package GROMACS runs efficiently on a wide variety of hardware from commodity workstations to high performance computing clusters. Hardware features are well‐exploited with a combination of single instruction multiple data, multithreading, and message passing interface (MPI)‐based single program multiple data/multiple program multiple data parallelism while graphics processing units (GPUs) can be used as accelerators to compute interactions off‐loaded from the CPU. Here, we evaluate which hardware produces trajectories with GROMACS 4.6 or 5.0 in the most economical way. We have assembled and benchmarked compute nodes with various CPU/GPU combinations to identify optimal compositions in terms of raw trajectory production rate, performance‐to‐price ratio, energy efficiency, and several other criteria. Although hardware prices are naturally subject to trends and fluctuations, general tendencies are clearly visible. Adding any type of GPU significantly boosts a node's simulation performance. For inexpensive consumer‐class GPUs this improvement equally reflects in the performance‐to‐price ratio. Although memory issues in consumer‐class GPUs could pass unnoticed as these cards do not support error checking and correction memory, unreliable GPUs can be sorted out with memory checking tools. Apart from the obvious determinants for cost‐efficiency like hardware expenses and raw performance, the energy consumption of a node is a major cost factor. Over the typical hardware lifetime until replacement of a few years, the costs for electrical power and cooling can become larger than the costs of the hardware itself. Taking that into account, nodes with a well‐balanced ratio of CPU and consumer‐class GPU resources produce the maximum amount of GROMACS trajectory over their lifetime. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Computational Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

[2]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[3]  J. P. Grossman,et al.  Anton 2: Raising the Bar for Performance and Programmability in a Special-Purpose Molecular Dynamics Supercomputer , 2014, SC14: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis.

[4]  Berk Hess,et al.  A flexible algorithm for calculating pair interactions on SIMD architectures , 2013, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[5]  Berk Hess,et al.  Lennard-Jones Lattice Summation in Bilayer Simulations Has Critical Effects on Surface Tension and Lipid Properties. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[6]  Nancy Wilkins-Diehr Proceedings of the Conference on Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment: Gateway to Discovery , 2013 .

[7]  Hans-Joachim Bungartz,et al.  Parallel Computing: Accelerating Computational Science and Engineering (CSE), Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Computing, ParCo 2013, 10-13 September 2013, Garching (near Munich), Germany , 2014, PARCO.

[8]  H. Grubmüller,et al.  Energy barriers and driving forces in tRNA translocation through the ribosome , 2013, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

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

[10]  Volodymyr Kindratenko,et al.  On testing GPU memory for hard and soft errors , 2011 .

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

[12]  Ross C. Walker,et al.  An investigation of the effects of error correcting code on GPU-accelerated molecular dynamics simulations , 2013, XSEDE.

[13]  김삼묘,et al.  “Bioinformatics” 특집을 내면서 , 2000 .

[14]  Ross C. Walker,et al.  An overview of the Amber biomolecular simulation package , 2013 .

[15]  Jill E. Gready,et al.  Optimization of parameters for molecular dynamics simulation using smooth particle‐mesh Ewald in GROMACS 4.5 , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[17]  10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, CCGrid 2010, 17-20 May 2010, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia , 2010, CCGRID.

[18]  T. Darden,et al.  A smooth particle mesh Ewald method , 1995 .

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

[20]  Vijay S. Pande,et al.  Hard Data on Soft Errors: A Large-Scale Assessment of Real-World Error Rates in GPGPU , 2009, 2010 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing.

[21]  Peter M. Kasson,et al.  GROMACS 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit , 2013, Bioinform..

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

[23]  Federico D. Sacerdoti,et al.  Scalable Algorithms for Molecular Dynamics Simulations on Commodity Clusters , 2006, ACM/IEEE SC 2006 Conference (SC'06).