New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bsunanda:Run2-alca52 Add AlCaReo stream for muon events #15266
Conversation
@cmsbuild Please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda for CMSSW_8_1_X. It involves the following packages: Calibration/HcalAlCaRecoProducers @ghellwig, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mmusich, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are list here #13028 |
@cmsbuild Please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
@bsunanda few comments questions.
just as you did for HcalCalIsoTrkFilter in #13251. Also, what is the expected data volume generated by this AlCaReco? |
@@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ | |||
TriggerResultLabel= cms.InputTag("TriggerResults","","HLT"), | |||
MuonLabel = cms.InputTag("muons"), | |||
MinimumMuonP = cms.double(10.0), | |||
Triggers = cms.vstring("HLT_IsoMu17","HLT_IsoMu20","HLT_IsoMu24","HLT_IsoMu27","HLT_Mu45","HLT_Mu50"), | |||
Triggers = cms.vstring("HLT_IsoMu","HLT_Mu"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bsunanda shouldn't this contain a wildcard like HLT_IsoMu*
?
For the record, an answer to my previous question was given during the AlCa/DB meeting Jul 25th.
|
@mmusich It is like a wild card - within the code it looks for "HLT_IsoMu" in the trigger path. We shall update the momentum cut and trigger names to make the disk requirement to something affordable. At that time we introduce changes in the 3 cff files. |
+1 |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
from the discussion at yesterday's ALCa/DB meeting https://indico.cern.ch/event/560332/contributions/2280818/attachments/1325371/1989361/Phase1-Talk06.pdf We asked what is the dependence of the performance of this calibration as a function of statistics, the answer to which question remains to be quantified. We agreed on moving this PR forward to expand the studies and either reduce the rate or build a solid physics case for the resources you ask. |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
@davidlange6 Please merge this PR |
not that my comment was really addressed - but I tried adding this to a workflow as it is not normally tested in the short matrix. I don't see big issues, however do we really need the dozens of value maps from muons? |
it actually is, via wf. 1000.0, or that's not what you are referring to? |
@davidlange6 We find that dropping some of the value maps we cannot proceed with the next step of final calibration. We tested that by dropping one at a time |
+1 @bsunanda - bizarre to have developed such a calibration. but ok |
This is in view of disappearance of RECO data. Need AlCaRecoSelector for calibrating HB/HE with muons. This is in preparation for calibration of 2017 data. Data volume required is ~1.6 TB per 1 /fb integrated luminosity with the latest correction