Re: [NMusers] hardware question

Diane, Mark and NMusers:

Thanks for pointing out the potential differences in modeling results
that may arise from different compilers, OS, hardware, NONMEM
version/patches and the importance of being transparent about these
details to potential reviewers. These are some of the reasons that led
us to develop NMQual, a tool which facilitates NONMEM installation,
tracks multiple installations of NONMEM and documents all of these
configuration options for every model run. In fact NMQual is part of the
basis of our (and other users') NONMEM software qualification strategy.

Metrum Institute is working on final steps of validation for NMQual 6.0,
which further extends the tool's flexibility and functionality to manage
both NONMEM V and VI installations and bug-fixes. NMQual 6.0 will
continue to be a platform-independent (Windows, Linux, UNIX, Mac OS),
open-source tool and will be available on the Metrum Institute web site
(www.metruminstitute.org) by February 1.

As always, we appreciate user feedback on any tools/resources provided
by Metrum Institute.

Marc

--
Marc R. Gastonguay, Ph.D.
President & CEO, Metrum Research Group LLC, www.metrumrg.com
Scientific Director, Metrum Institute, www.metruminstitute.org



Diane R Mould wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> Yes, clients often want to be able to reproduce a contractor's results by
> re-running the final model on their own system and I would also say that the
> regulators do as well. For Nonmem V, therefore, having different compilers
> and processors is a valid concern. I think Peter Bonate had a poster at
> AAPS some years ago investigating differences in hardware and compilers.
>
> However for Nonmem VI, our experience thus far has been that it is not as
> sensitive to compilers and hardware. In fact it also appears to be less
> sensitive than Nonmem V was to the run termination status as well (so even
> if the runs terminate, parameter estimates are generally pretty good, as is
> the OBJ), which I think is consistent with what Tom Ludden presented when he
> gave a preview of Nonmem VI. So for your hardware, I would guess if Nonmem
> VI is the system you will be using for future consulting jobs, you should
> not have problems duplicating your results on other hardware.
>
> Good luck finding a buyer :-)
>
> Diane
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-nmusers_at_globomaxnm.com [mailto:owner-nmusers_at_globomaxnm.com]
>> On Behalf Of Mark Sale - Next Level Solutions
>> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:18 AM
>> Cc: nmusers_at_globomaxnm.com
>> Subject: [NMusers] hardware question
>>
>> For those of you who don't keep track of such things, Intel is, today,
>> releasing the desktop (non-gaming) quad core CPU. I'm thinking of
>> redoing my entire network, buying maybe 8 quad core machines for the GA
>> application, as well as parallel NONMEM. My question is, as a
>> consultant, my clients frequently want to re-run final models on their
>> hardware - and I assume that the regulators do as well. How much of a
>> problem will it be if I set up my system as 64 bit Vista (or XP) with
>> the Intel 64 bit compiler? There will be times when the 64 bit result
>> will be different than the 32 bit (as there are times when different
>> compiler setting, different compiler etc give different results). Is
>> anyone out there planning to move to 64 bit Intel? Will anyone be able
>> to rerun my results? It seems, as far as I can tell, the 64 bit system
>> is maybe 20-40% faster than a comparable 32 bit system. So, quad core,
>> 64 bit and NONMEM VI (which is faster than NONMEM V), should make a
>> noticable difference.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> (anyone out there want to buy 12 slightly used dual core computers?)
>>
>> Mark Sale MD
>> Next Level Solutions, LLC
>> www.NextLevelSolns.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tue Jan 09 2007 - 08:00:51 EST