Sphenix-calibration-l mailing list

["Benjamin, Douglas" <dbenjamin AT bnl.gov>]

Hi Justin,

  Thank you for the update. The Tuesday after the collaboration meeting is 
fine. Thanks for all of your work.

Regards,
Doug Benjamin

-----Original Message-----
From: "Frantz, Justin" <frantz AT ohio.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 11:19 PM
To: Ross Corliss <rcorliss AT mit.edu>, "Benjamin, Douglas" <dbenjamin AT bnl.gov>
Cc: sphenix calibrations <sphenix-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: RE: [Sphenix-calibration-l] Input for Collaboration Meeting

    Hi all, 

    First Doug I presume you'll want the similar things for the calo side, I 
wasn't sure if you heard me at the end of the computing meeting today I was 
planning on updating the calo workflow chart with more of the numbers based 
on our last week discussion and getting some more of what we didn't have last 
time, and I could include more about these aggregation and small file 
generation steps, but I was thinking to do this on the time scale of next 
time we meet  (for another Calo Calib-SDCC mtg during Tuesday computing mtg 
time) which will be just after the collab mtg,  if you are OK with that 
timescale.  

    Second to all about the collab mtg (and sorry for the delayed response):  
Christof and I were discussing just after the computing mtg today, I think it 
would be good to have a couple short talks on the calo side during our 
scheduled time from the two current efforts for the Emcal and Hcal on Cosmics 
and LED testing, since a lot has been happening and there are some  new young 
people working on this which it'd be nice to highlight.    We were thinking 
maybe we still shoot for fairly short talks each, maybe if we shoot for 5 
minutes each if that is remotely possible or 10 minutes max (I think I could 
probably keep my summary to 5 personally, I would also probably show our flow 
chart,e .g. but I don't think there's been much else new since the S&C 
review)  we could get in 5 or 6 short talks and still even leave a tiny time 
for discussion in keeping with the theme of the other sessions.  Discussion 
aside, if we shoot to make them all really short then we at least may keep 
just the talks within the hour timeframe...

    -Justin


    ----------------------------------------------
    Justin Frantz, Ph. D.  he
    RHIC UEC/Diversity Working Group
    Brookhaven National Lab, sPHENIX Experiment
    Associate Professor
    Ohio University Dept. Of Physics and Astronomy   
    frantz AT ohio.edu   
    646-228-2539  
    PERSONAL ZOOM MEETING:  369-910-7530   Password:  1  
    
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3699107530?pwd=TkZLeU1MY2d5eUpqeTJ5WUJTRHlVUT09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!VOJGOIqUIrXwa8Y_86tYNXTiCmzQ9K0nX27ctVDtpPKPqrtS4-zO6FnrC6Y1U--r$
 

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: sPHENIX-calibration-l [mailto:sphenix-calibration-l-
    > bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Ross Corliss via 
sPHENIX-calibration-l
    > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 3:58 PM
    > To: Benjamin, Douglas <dbenjamin AT bnl.gov>
    > Cc: sphenix calibrations <sphenix-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
    > Subject: Re: [Sphenix-calibration-l] Input for Collaboration Meeting
    > 
    > Hi Doug,
    > 
    > I'll keep working to get all the details in there as we realize we've 
left them
    > out.  If there are pieces still missing from what I show tomorrow, let 
me
    > know.
    > 
    > -Ross
    > > On Jun 7, 2021, at 3:42 PM, Benjamin, Douglas <dbenjamin AT bnl.gov>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > >  Would it be possible for  the 'rev 3' of the flow chart include the  
merge
    > steps also listed. If all of the steps are listed in the flow chart 
then it more
    > straight forward to understand the intermediate data products, their 
sizes,
    > how often they are aggregated.  I would like to start to assemble the
    > processing DAG (at least on paper). The flow chart will be the input to 
the
    > DAG, there will be some steps that will need to be run in parallel to 
produce
    > enough output for the aggregation steps.  I know I might be stating the
    > obvious but I would like to write it down.  If there are a lot of small 
files
    > produced by many processes across many nodes, then we need a storage
    > device that can handle the load. Such things are not cheap.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Doug Benjamin
    > >
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: sPHENIX-calibration-l 
<sphenix-calibration-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov>
    > on behalf of Ross Corliss via sPHENIX-calibration-l 
<sphenix-calibration-
    > l AT lists.bnl.gov>
    > > Reply-To: Ross Corliss <rcorliss AT mit.edu>
    > > Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 2:14 PM
    > > To: Hugo Pereira Da Costa <hugo.pereira-da-costa AT cea.fr>
    > > Cc: sphenix calibrations <sphenix-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
    > > Subject: Re: [Sphenix-calibration-l] Input for Collaboration Meeting
    > >
    > >    HI Hugo et al.,
    > >
    > >    I think the details of how the distortions are derived and combined
    > (hence the flow chart -- probably a
    > >    'rev 3', with the 'validate' step fleshed out) would be good to 
show, along
    > with the status of the components.  This matches a lot of Hugo's 
comments.
    > >    Some of the details of the central membrane distortion monitoring 
(which
    > we will discuss tomorrow, and hopefully have a pull request before the 
collab
    > meeting) have also progressed since last time.
    > >
    > >    I would be glad to assemble the slides and present the status.
    > >
    > >    -Ross
    > >> On Jun 7, 2021, at 12:14 PM, Hugo Pereira Da Costa via sPHENIX-
    > calibration-l <sphenix-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Hello Christof, (repeating here what we discussed semi-privately)
    > >>
    > >> On the track-based space charge distortion reconstruction, there 
really
    > have not been much new things since last collaboration meeting, mainly
    > because things where in a reasonable state by then already.
    > >>
    > >> Obviously, there have been developments on making the TPOT
    > happening for real (something which is critical to track-based SC 
corrections),
    > but I expect this to be covered in a separate talk in the detector 
section
    > >>
    > >> To me, the newest thing that should really be presented at the
    > collaboration meeting is the effort, led by Ross, to put all the bits 
and pieces
    > we have on the TPC SC distortion correction in a comprehensive flow 
chart,
    > organized in a first-pass and second-pass reconstruction.
    > >>
    > >> We should then emphasize which parts of this flowchart are already 
there
    > (committed, ready to use), which are 'almost there', and which still 
need
    > some significant work. I'll let Ross comment on this (and hopefully 
volunteer
    > to present this).
    > >>
    > >> On that topic, one of the missing parts of the flow-chart, namely the
    > ability for the first-pass reconstruction to store the per-job 
space-charge
    > correction matrices in independent, tiny files, together with a separate
    > process to aggregate, invert these matrices and produce a full map, has 
been
    > pushed to our repositories last week. So we are one step closer to 
having this
    > flow chart turned into a real thing.
    > >>
    > >> That is all the input I have.
    > >>
    > >> Best,
    > >>
    > >> Hugo
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On 6/4/2021 8:58 AM, Christof Roland via sPHENIX-calibration-l wrote:
    > >>> Thanks to Klaus for pointing this out, obviously the mail should
    > >>> have started with "DeaR Calibration TaskFocre Members"
    > >>>
    > >>> I sincerely apologize!
    > >>>
    > >>> This will go onto my list of the more memorable typos or autocorrect
    > failures.
    > >>>
    > >>> Cheers
    > >>>
    > >>>   Christof
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>> On 4. Jun 2021, at 16:40, Christof Roland via sPHENIX-calibration-l
    > <sphenix-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Dead Calibration TaskForce Members,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> we are supposed to provide feedback to Dave & Gunther so they
    > >>>> can set up the program for the upcoming collaboration meeting.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Could you please provide us with a few line response on the
    > >>>> topics you would want to highlight at the collaboration meeting?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Please also let us know if you would prefer the usual layout
    > >>>> if a separate report by each subcommittee or if we should
    > >>>> change for this particular meeting to a shorter executive style
    > >>>> report to keep the meeting time short and leaving more time for
    > >>>> discussion, as Gunther and Dave suggested last General Meeting
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Cheers
    > >>>>
    > >>>>  Takao & Christof
    > >>>> _______________________________________________
    > >>>> sPHENIX-calibration-l mailing list
    > >>>> sPHENIX-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov
    > >>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-calibration-l
    > >>> _______________________________________________
    > >>> sPHENIX-calibration-l mailing list
    > >>> sPHENIX-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov
    > >>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-calibration-l
    > >> _______________________________________________
    > >> sPHENIX-calibration-l mailing list
    > >> sPHENIX-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov
    > >> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-calibration-l
    > >
    > >    _______________________________________________
    > >    sPHENIX-calibration-l mailing list
    > >    sPHENIX-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov
    > >    https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-calibration-l
    > >
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > sPHENIX-calibration-l mailing list
    > sPHENIX-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov
    > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-calibration-l