Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l - Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] Prioritized scope contingency/opportunity

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Zhang, Jinlong" <zhangjl AT anl.gov>
  • To: Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT hep.upenn.edu>
  • Cc: "Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] Prioritized scope contingency/opportunity
  • Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:25:10 +0000

Hi All,


I would guess that it should be related to the NSF scope
-- L1Track Hardware + firmware 
    -- ~50% TPs --> ~$1M (assuming ~1/3 of AMTPs moved to L1Track, because rHTT not needed with L1Track)
    -- firmware???  - no model here but maybe half of the planned firmware for the baseline --> $1M

I am not sure can follow the logic here. As historically discussed in quite a bit details, the total TT processing hardware in L0/L1 vs L0 only should not be much different except increasing I/O components(1 MHz to 4 MHz). If L1Track is introduced as in the L0/L1, the EF part of HTT in such a scenario will do less tracking work therefore the total TP boards needed for EF part should be smaller than the HTT in L0 only situation; so I am not sure 50% more TPs for L1Track is a proper number comparing the baseline scenario;

For firmware, the key changes needed for L1Track is the data preparation, which is in either in Felix on HTTIF equivalent. So again I am not sure 50% more firmware in TP is reasonable.

Cheers,

Jinlong



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page