response block size in GW reduced to some value

You can find here problems arising when using old releases of Yambo (< 5.0). Issues as parallelization strategy, performance issues and other technical aspects.

Moderators: Davide Sangalli, andrea.ferretti, myrta gruning, andrea marini, Daniele Varsano, Conor Hogan

Locked
Christian Koenig
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:48 am

response block size in GW reduced to some value

Post by Christian Koenig » Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:41 pm

Hi All,

Can someone by any chance tell me why the following warning would show up in the report file (r-*) of a calculation:

[WARNING] Response block size in GW reduced to 495 RL (7631 mHa)

I get this warning when I repeat an old calculation with the new version 5 of the code.
The results of the G0W0 calculation are NAN and I assume that this is related to the warning,
maybe because the input file has some additional parameters in the new version.


Best regards,

Christian
Christian Koenig
Tyndall National Institute
Cork, Ireland

User avatar
Daniele Varsano
Posts: 4231
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: response block size in GW reduced to some value

Post by Daniele Varsano » Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:48 pm

Dear Christian,

the warning should be harmless, and surely it should not produce any NaN.
Are you using terminator technique, right?
Can you please pos your input and reports?

Daniele
Dr. Daniele Varsano
S3-CNR Institute of Nanoscience and MaX Center, Italy
MaX - Materials design at the Exascale
http://www.nano.cnr.it
http://www.max-centre.eu/

andrea.ferretti
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:13 am

Re: response block size in GW reduced to some value

Post by andrea.ferretti » Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:52 pm

Have you tried to regenerate the input file using the new version ?
Andrea Ferretti, PhD
CNR-NANO-S3 and MaX Centre
via Campi 213/A, 41125, Modena, Italy
Tel: +39 059 2055322; Skype: andrea_ferretti
URL: http://www.nano.cnr.it

Christian Koenig
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:48 am

Re: response block size in GW reduced to some value

Post by Christian Koenig » Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:21 am

Hi All,

Sorry for the late reply and thanks for your comments.

The problem happens with and without the terminator and the
input file was regenerated on top of the old input file.

Maybe the latter is the issue but we have in the meantime
circumvented the problem, i.e. the calculation is no longer
necessary.


Best,

Christian
Christian Koenig
Tyndall National Institute
Cork, Ireland

Locked