Filter invalid hcal upgrade data #19100
Conversation
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 (Kevin Pedro) for master. It involves the following packages: EventFilter/HcalRawToDigi @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
cmsbuild
added
comparison-pending
tests-pending
and removed
comparison-available
tests-approved
labels
|
Pull request #19100 was updated. @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
|
@slava77 where do you see those changes? When I look at https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_9_2_X_2017-06-05-2300+19100/20427/, everything is green. |
|
ah, I was looking at an earlier jenkins result by mistake. |
|
I've also removed the post with wrong comparisons to avoid confusion |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
I checked one of the recent runs (295953 CommissioningSingleJet PD, using 92X_dataRun2_Prompt_v4). Is everything so clean typically (no unrelated digis to filter) or is something missing? |
|
I'm not sure what the expected rate of invalid digis should be. @christopheralanwest can you comment? Do you know any runs we can test to see if the |
|
Typically fewer than 1 event in about 10^4 has invalid data, and often much less. For example, the DQM for run 296424 shows no invalid data in any of the 330k events processed. We don't have a systematic estimate for the upgrade channels because this is the piece of code that would be used to generate such an estimate. I've attached a plot from run 295376 during which the HFM07 tripped off, which corresponds to the region from -41 to the first -29 (the repeated -29 in the plot is indeed correct). It was generated from /store/data/Run2017A/HcalNZS/RAW/v1/000/295/376/00000/140DD20B-5C43-E711-8B80-02163E01286A.root . HEM (the yellow region) was off for the entire run. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
On 6/8/17 12:04 PM, christopheralanwest wrote:
Typically fewer than 1 event in about 10^4 has invalid data, and often
much less. For example, the DQM for run 296424 shows no invalid data in
any of the 330k events processed. We don't have a systematic estimate
for the upgrade channels because this is the piece of code that would be
used to generate such an estimate.
I've attached a plot from run 295376 during which the HFM07 tripped off,
which corresponds to the region from -41 to the first -29 (the repeated
-29 in the plot is indeed correct). It was generated from
/store/data/Run2017A/HcalNZS/RAW/v1/000/295/376/00000/140DD20B-5C43-E711-8B80-02163E01286A.root
. HEM (the yellow region) was off for the entire run.
run295376_depth1_BadQuality.pdf
<https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/files/1062100/run295376_depth1_BadQuality.pdf>
I used this file and I see no differences on 200 events.
It looks like every event here has 1344 bad digis, but this count is the
same with and without the PR.
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19100 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcblzIlPBmcDuTvTmVSeTHXPJY6Y3bks5sCEXCgaJpZM4NwZj7>.
|
|
The LV in the relevant HF module tripped in lumisection 113: https://cmswbm.cern.ch/cmsdb/servlet/LumiSections?RUN=295376 and so you simply didn't reach the section of the file with bad QIE10 digis. Lumisection 114 begins at the 2622nd event in the file used so if you only want to run over 200 events, you should skip to that point in the file. The digis that are bad in all events correspond to HEM, which was off for all of run 295376. |
|
On 6/8/17 4:45 PM, christopheralanwest wrote:
The LV in the relevant HF module tripped in lumisection 113:
https://cmswbm.cern.ch/cmsdb/servlet/LumiSections?RUN=295376
and so you simply didn't reach the section of the file with bad QIE10
digis. Lumisection 114 begins at the 2622nd event in the file used so if
you only want to run over 200 events, you should skip to that point in
the file.
thanks for the explanation.
I missed the starting point.
…
The digis that are bad in all events correspond to HEM, which was off
for all of run 295376.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19100 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbnFOlKppbuidk6afN7p2KjOCM4g2ks5sCIeigaJpZM4NwZj7>.
|
|
+1
(black or left is the baseline in CMSSW_9_2_1) Some example of bad HEP17 data could be more interesting. |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
reconstruction-pending
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
|
+1 |
|
@davidlange6 this did not make it into 9_2_2? |
|
On 6/9/17 6:26 AM, Kevin Pedro wrote:
@davidlange6 <https://github.com/davidlange6> this did not make it into
9_2_2?
no.
a patch soon?
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19100 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcblgs6KMbsx_UYDizSExYCOxnyhpUks5sCUfvgaJpZM4NwZj7>.
|
|
presumably when the hcal fixes its tier0 problems we'll have a patch..
… On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> wrote:
On 6/9/17 6:26 AM, Kevin Pedro wrote:
> @davidlange6 <https://github.com/davidlange6> this did not make it into
> 9_2_2?
no.
a patch soon?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#19100 (comment)>, or
> mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcblgs6KMbsx_UYDizSExYCOxnyhpUks5sCUfvgaJpZM4NwZj7>.
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
The new HCAL digis (QIE10 and QIE11) need to be added to the
HcalUnpackerReport, so DQM can track the presence of invalid data.Specific points:
attn: @christopheralanwest