Transcript ppt

GLAST LAT Project
Feb 7, 2004
SVAC Configuration Verification
•
What did we check?
– Numbers in the csv matrix that we understood, were compared to
values from snapshot files and rcReport.out
– Values of registers we considered the most relevant for offline
data analysis were given highest priority (see next slide)
– Cosmic ray runs were first in the list
– Look at all Digi and recon Distributions in the SVAC reports
•
Procedures?
– We produced SVAC configuration reports from reference files
delivered by subsystems
– Used those from email from Hiro and Eric
– Had Martin come to our office to look at the trigger information
– Printed reports from actual runs and compared by hand
– Our system was designed to provide feedback for data analysis
within a week time frame
– However it became part of the integration sequence and we had
to use it to provide answers within a few hours
» Of course, it was not smooth
E. do Couto e Silva
1/5
GLAST LAT Project
Feb 7, 2004
Registers we care (today) for the offline data analysis
•
•
•
TEM Status
– Zero Suppression ON/OFF, TEM diagnostics ON/OFF
Detector Registers
– TKR GTRC splits
– TKR GTFE thresholds in DAC units for ranges 0 and 1
– CAL GCFE thresholds in DAC units (LAC, FLE, FHE)
– CAL Readout range selector discriminator
– CAL DAC for DC reference
– CAL delays 1,2,3
Trigger and Timing Registers (GEM, GLT)
– Delay from CAL trigger discriminator to TEM trigger primitive formation
– Delay from TKR trigger discriminator to TEM trigger primitive formation
– Stretch width of CAL trigger primitive
– Hold trigger primitive for TEM diagnostic latching of CAL trigger primitive
– Hold trigger primitive for TEM diagnostic latching of TKR trigger primitive
– Width of trigger window in GEM
– Delays from trigger TACK to shaper hold for CAL and TKR
•
E. do Couto e Silva
2/5
GLAST LAT Project
Feb 7, 2004
Data Quality Plots
• Go to the Runs database
• Query on
– Test ID: 1/1
– Completion Status: PASSED
– Duration: > 1000
• Look at Config report and digi and recon reports
– Currently we are updating the reports based on the results
from these runs
– Comments are welcome
– Please come to our Friday meetings if you want to
participate
E. do Couto e Silva
3/5
GLAST LAT Project
Feb 7, 2004
Issues
•
•
The current verification scheme can be improved
What to do to improve and who will check configurations for 2 tower tests?
– In case you still wants us to do it, we have a shopping list
– Note that SAS/pipeline then becomes then part of the integration sequence
and this is a change in plans and the impact needs to be assessed
•
To improve the process we recommend
– Review of matrix prior to tests, to ensure values are correct
– For example, trigger timing wasn’t (not a big deal but it should be right)
– Delivery of reference files from (CAL, TKR and TRIG) for both towers with
description of contents
– 3 days in advance (CAL/TKR), 1 day in advance (trigger)
– Get a list of additional registers to be checked and their reference values
– CAL send us requests for config_0 and config_1 that we are trying to
accommodate n the next release of our code (ASAP)
– Produce a general tool to parse the snapshot file
– Unoftunately neither online or SVAC could od that, better if ISOC does it
•
The automation of the verification process could be done
– but SVAC priority is to analyze data ASAP so that we can provide feedback
to the 2 tower tests
– Can’t promise that will happen for 2 tower tests, but could try for the LAT
tests
E. do Couto e Silva
4/5
GLAST LAT Project
Feb 7, 2004
What did we learn?
• Runs checked (took 2-3 hours to go through data quality
reports)
– 1/1,2/3,2/6,2/7,3/1,3/2,7/1,4/1,8/6,4/2,4/3,5/3
• Runs to be checked which are already available
– 5/6,5/7,8/8/,4/4/,B/1
– there are still 15 runs to be taken
• What next? A presentation in IA Friday meetings
– Prepare a list of run numbers and test IDs
– Show a summary of plots
– Present a list of questions for which we do not have an
answer yet
– these will lead to data analysis tasks for the LAT
collaborators
– Hopefully we will be able to provide feedback to the 2
tower tests
» What is deadline for that?
E. do Couto e Silva
5/5