Overview, future & computing model change ...

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, Caltech, February 2004

Covering for some sub-systems who could not make it & DAQ100 ...

Quick overview of STAR-trek ...

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

sub-systems's report

DAQ100 summary

Other software issues

Mid-term software evolution and motivations

Computing model change

Sub-system status & progress

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Still 12 sub-systems, only some will be covered here

PMD

TOFr / TOFp

E-EMC

B-EMC

Trigger (Akio Ogawa)

L3 (Thorsten Kolleger)

FTPC (Janet Seyboth)

SVT (Helen Caines)

TPC (in regards of DAQ100 and ITTF) (Javier Castillo)

Trigger (Akio Ogawa)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

From StXXXTriggerDetector()to StTriggerData()

Code spanned over several makers, several people, some not maintained + and BAD Year2 & 3 experiences, asked Akio then for oversight and coordination, one class does it all (with help from Mirko Planicic)

At least 1 year old class in StEvent i.e. StTriggerData()

It allows accessing ALL trigger data

Easy to deal with year by year differences, while keeping backward compatibility, easy-to-use access functions

After ITTF integration (most tables gone), this will be THE way to access to trigger data. Migrate to StTriggerData NOW !!!

Caveat: Need some fixes in common micro DST

Trigger

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

http://www.star.bnl.gov/webdatanfs/dox/html/StTriggerData_8h-source.html

StEvent * event=(StEvent *)GetInputDS("StEvent");

StTriggerData* trgdata= event->triggerData();

If(trgdata){

for(int pmt=0; pmt < 16; pmt++) cout << trgdata->bbcADC(east,0) <<“ “;

cout << “, sum=“ << trgdata->bbcADCSum(east) <<endl;

}

More access function

• unsigned short year() returns 2003 or 2004…etc

• void dump() print out a dump

• char* getTriggerStructure() get pointer to the trigger data structure (for experts)

Do NOT worry about year to year difference (taken care of it for you)

Name should be obvious… (documentations lacking for now but under work)

Detector experts need to contact akio(akio@bnl.gov) if your detector need

mapped access function. Once done it will be available without re-productions.

L3 (Thorsten Kolleger)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Initial myrinet routing problem from DAQ to L3, running stable since end of January. Currently running 3 express streams

Upsilon (Thorsten , Soeren, ...) : EMC high tower > 3.0 GeV && L2 invariant mass 7.2 < m < 50 && L3 track-tower match (reject high towers from neutrals)

strangelet (Zhangbu, Aihong, ...) central && ZDC strip + ZDC neutron && L3 select on CTB-ZDC

high-pT (Tom, ...) (1 EMC high tower > 9 GeV) || (1 TPC track > 5 GeV and 1 tower > 6 GeV)

Level-3 express streams are running since Fri Feb 13, processed through FastOffline, looks reasonable.

Tom, Thorsten and Soeren will return to Germany April 1st .

Only remote support from Frankfurt until end of 2004.

An institution responsibility (council meeting report) ??

FTPC status (Janet/Peter Seyboth)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Physics Contributions (+ discussion with PWGC)

Spectra and flow analysis ( 20 M events should be enough)

Charged/Neutral particle fluctuations using PMD and FTPC (no data yet)

Ultra peripheral collisions (no data yet)

Centrality and reaction plane determination independent from TPC

Charged particle correlations (back to back, forward rapidity) with FPD triggered high pT p0 (FPD readout not ready yet)

Strangeness at large eta (forward Lambda)

FTPC status – then ...

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

FTPC in the run

18 M events mainly in productionMinBias

Calibration/ Rotation

Presently using 2003 calibration, basically OK

Small adjustments will be made when TPC calibration is available

Compare vertex positions determined separately in TPC and FTPC.

After TPC calibration :

~ 10 K reconstructed events with no FTPC rotations to

estimate 2004 rotation angles

~ 10 K events to verify the result

FTPC status – now ...

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

unfortunately some of the readout electronics were lost

~ 20 % in FTPC East progressive tracking inefficiencies

FTPC currently turned OFF :-(, back on now with lower voltage

FTPC status – future ...

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Medium term

Will run with lower voltage and monitor electronic stability

Alexei looking for along term plan

Integration of FTPC into ITTF chain:

Work in progress, to be completed by mid-March (thanks to Markus Oldenburg)

FTPC software transfer to Purdue group:

Technology transfer in progress

2004 calibration being done by Terry Tarnowsky (and Brijesh Srivastava)

TPC status & DAQ100 (Javier Castillo)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Offline code mainly done and working.
A few items since last analysis meeting (November 2003)

After burner and comparison online clusters vs. offline raw + FCF

done (adjustment needed)

Required a switch to apply (not apply) TPC gain corrections
(H.Ward) [done]

Calibration

Synchronization of online and offline (DataBase) tpc gain files

“By hand” from file produced by Tonko, once every now

and then (can change only if FEEs died or are replaced)

Need to be automated !!

TPC status & ITTF

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

A lot needed to be done

Corrections needed to be moved outside of TPT (ExB, PadRow, ShortedRing, etc ... corrections and Sector alignment
StTpcHitMoverMaker (T. Kollegger)

Tracker tuning for Real Data (B. Hippolyte)

Worry? Hit Errors parameters used for tracking differ from hit residuals
- Residual studies ongoing
- If changes, we need to redo efficiencies study for cross-check

Other issues with TPC/ITTF (Manuel Calderon)

DAQ100 summary

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

HBT
Strangeness

Spectra

Estruct

High Pt

UPC

Spin

EbyE

Heavy Flavor

Mercedes Lopez Noriega
Betty Bezverkhny

Levente Molnar / Raimond Snellings

Duncan Prindle & Jeff Porter

Jennifer Klay

Janet Seger

Jan Balweski

Aihong Tang

Jingguo Ma

Sent a long summary in starsoft after closing of the the chapter with embedding studies.

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/starsoft/5288.html

http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/hbt/mercedes/daq100/nov03.html

http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/highpt/jklay/DAQ100/25Nov2003/embedding/DAQ100_embedding.html

The team

DAQ100 summary

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

All looked, most signed-off. The remaining points

Divergence at large eta (> 1.0-1.2) comparing to TPT (low Pt)

NFIT issues for nfit > 42 (stronger effect at ½ field)

Low Pt (0.3-0.5) did not show Lambda pic (low stat and dE/dx ?)

Better in terms of splitting, merging comparable

UPC have less events (factor of 2) with FCF, 1/3 with current standard cuts

Would not be too fair to the good work from all to select
results, nonetheless ...

DAQ100 - HBT

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

ratio of real pairs over mixed pairs; ideal tracking ratio = 1

Red, FCF

Black TCL

DAQ100 - Strangeness

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Lambda invariant mass, only lowest bin is doubtful

DAQ100 embedding – eff vs Pt

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

DAQ100 embedding – eff vs eta

DAQ100 embedding – nfit points, central half field

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Other – online and database

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Database and online (Micheal DePhillips)

RunLog browser was extended : new prescales in trigger Summary, added detector present list (adjustment needed)

As presented at the last collaboration meeting, database scales for run conditions

http://www.star.bnl.gov/STAR/comp/meet/CM200308/

HOWEVER

MySQL is NOT a professional database
Shigeki's dogma : “cheap, fast/scales, reliable”

Several cases recently where > 10 MB / events requested (broke)

In 2/3 instances, could simplify and reduce by factors > 100

Other – details later ...

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Run support: FastOffline is running relatively well

A few infratructure problems : but gain is immediate: several sub-systems catching problems as they appear.

Allows for ongoing calibration / alignment (SVT, EMC, FTPC, TPC to some extend)

QA in Run4 (and beyond) (Lanny Ray)

Reconstruction developments (Yuri Fisyak)

(New) Calibration issues (Shorted TPC) (Gene V. Buren)

Simulation developments (Maxim Potekhin)

Other - ITTF

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Reminder (last analysis meeting)

New coming data would at maximum be processed in Fast Offline
old chain mode

Production WILL NOT occur before (and until) Sti is ready !!!

After the final integration week, in April, we break away from old
code.

Un-movable dates

March 15th is the target date for the latest version of the library with the old code

In parallel, final integration WILL occur (TBA)

Progress and status (Manuel Calderon)

lots of changes coming our way ...

Other – Future (½ - 1 year)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

What we want to avoid

A cruise on that boat ...

But however

Database is at the limit of usability for calibration

STAR production is crumbling under heavy Physics program

STAR has a longer term plan relying on detector developments
and R&D

...

We need to get serious with several new Computing projects

Other – Future (will hear about it again)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Infrastructure required components

Changing database technology ?? Transparent / abstract interface to
Db. ODBC ?? Data Access and Integration (DAI) ??

Running on the Grid implies: reliable, traceable, consistent.Log4j !?

Integrated Catalog !! GridCollector !! IO to revisit ??

Provide tools to developers (code longevity)

Detector R&D, time frame & foggy Geant3 future DOES
NOT allow to continue in the current direction (yet other abstract
interfaces, from Virtual Monte-Carlo to detector description)
(Yuri Fisyak / Maxim Potekhin)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

The future ...

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Would be nice to be like this ...

Likely to be, from time to time, a bit like that ...

Now for the organizational changes ...

Computing Model change (the bitterness slide)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

C.f. talk at the Analysis Meeting November 2003

Last collaboration meeting talk named “100 Million Events, what
does this mean ??” August 2003

... and in 2002,

“DAQ100 effects on Software & Computing” November 2001
(got 10 cents from John Harris)

That time has now come !!..

How do we analyze x5 (x10) more data with

Moore's law expansion ??

The question being : are we ready ??

Repeatedly asking for more money was a complete WASTE of
time and efforts ...

Reminder (scale of the problem)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

(Jamie Dunlop)

We have 40 M minbias. Will have 50 M ?? 60 M ??

We will have worth 30 M central ?? 40 M ??

Numbers do not need to be accurate to grasp the magnitude of
the problem ... Below a 50/50 central/minbias, 75 M total estimate

Just in case, that's
~ 1 year ...

Scale of the problem

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Where are we now ??

FY04 purchase allows for more resources (yesterday's news) – 361 days 1 pass becomes 280 days (beware, no expansion to user analysis farm within this figure / plan)

ICC compiler, 30% gain in speed ?? ~ 200 days ...

Fine, we can do 1 ½ passes in 1 year

Easy said, not easy go ... (1) untested
(2) can we afford +0 nodes to CAS ??

We may have a possible part-solution ...

Anything else ??

Large dataset consequences, solutions

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Long range production have several organization consequences
- production team or more automation needed (Cataloging, Registration, error and disaster recovery, failure sorting)
- strong and TIMELY QA-ing necessary – Announcing the lack of signal XX or value YY after ½ way through a production will no longer be considered as funny (is actually NOT already)

In all cases, something needs to be done now while
we (I?) can ..

Large dataset consequences, solutions

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Large experiment base their resource on an obscenely distributed model (we want to remain practical)
Grid technology helps “discovering” free resources

Distributed local resource (disk space) is much cheaper

We MUST (this is NOT a suggestion) move user analysis to a locally distributed model (no money for centralized storage in the first place and DOES NOT scale)

We MUST try to run simulation on the Grid and gather experience later needed for Data Production on the Grid

Large dataset & models (last word)

Jérôme Lauret, Collaboration Meeting, February 2004

Ultimately, simulation, embedding, user analysis will need to migrate to the Grid or use Grid tools (Scheduler, GridCollector)

Other consequence : how do we do QA on the Grid ?? Maintain our code and libraries in sync across sites ?? package and distribute approved code ?? bundle analysis code ??

What is clear: BNL cannot remain the sole data center

Old model – Tier0 center / Tier0 analysis

Intermediate model – Tier0 center / Tier1 embedding (PDSF)

STAR, the next generation : Tier0 / Tier1 / Tier2

Overview, prospects & computing model change

Collaboration Meeting, Pasadena February 2004

Jerome LAURET

2001-11-29T17:11:57