Revert "Workflow 511.1: herwig7+ MG5+Openloops pptoee at NLO QCD" #24995
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-24995/6974 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @fabiocos (Fabio Cossutti) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Generator @cmsbuild, @efeyazgan, @zhenhu, @perrozzi, @prebello, @kpedro88, @pgunnell, @alberto-sanchez, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test purely academic in this case |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
@fabiocos , @davidlange6 has built openloops with optimization ( cms-sw/cmsdist#4448 ) and workflow 511.1 ran with in 1h15. I would suggest to get the cmsdist PR merged |
|
please see also cms-sw/cmsdist#4448
… On Oct 25, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote:
Reverts #24813
The added workflow systematically fails the 2 hours time limit of the IB, it is clearly not suitable for regular test. This may point to different issues:
• recalculation of matrix elements at every generation run instead of pre-computing them (a la gridpack), this looks a questionable structural choice;
• according to @efeyazgan openloops seems here much slower than in association with sherpa. Provided the comparison is on a similar process, this might point to some integration issues;
• according to @davidlange6 checks the code is likely not optimal in terms of performances in several places.
In agreement with @efeyazgan I revert this PR, as it looks pointless. A follow up should be done in view of possible use of this generator configuration in production (it looks quite inefficient).
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#24995
Commit Summary
• Revert "Workflow 511.1: herwig7+ MG5+Openloops pptoee at NLO QCD"
File Changes
• D Configuration/Generator/python/Herwig7_Matchbox_madgraph_openloops_Herwig_ppToee_cff.py (75)
• M Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_generator.py (1)
• M Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py (1)
Patch Links:
• https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/24995.patch
• https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/24995.diff
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@davidlange6 thank you for the update. @efeyazgan @qliphy confirm my understanding that there is no initial integration providing gridpacks that can be reused, which makes this approach suboptimal in any case. This is still under work by authors. Anyway you work could be useful for future developments as well, regardless of the specific problem of this test. Let's merge your fix and see, In case this PR can be put on hold ot just closed if the GEN conveners see a benefit to keep the test in the sequence (as it was originally proposed..) |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
hold |
|
Pull request has been put on hold by @fabiocos |
|
"> @davidlange6 thank you for the update. @efeyazgan @qliphy confirm my understanding that there is no initial integration providing gridpacks that can be reused, which makes this approach suboptimal in any case. This is still under work by authors. Anyway you work could be useful for future developments as well, regardless of the specific problem of this test. Let's merge your fix and see, In case this PR can be put on hold ot just closed if the GEN conveners see a benefit to keep the test in the sequence (as it was originally proposed..)" @fabiocos Yes, there is no "Herpack" yet (@Andrej-CMS can give more info). |
|
@efeyazgan |
|
The updated by @davidlange6 of the external has indeed prevented the TimeOut problem. Still is this the way we want to run? Is the GEN group willing to keep this test waiting for a more production-friendly approach? |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
unhold |
|
+1 from discussions with the GEN conveners, the workflow needs a revision where LHE files are allowed. |
|
merge |
Reverts #24813
The added workflow systematically fails the 2 hours time limit of the IB, it is clearly not suitable for regular test. This may point to different issues:
In agreement with @efeyazgan I revert this PR, as it looks pointless. A follow up should be done in view of possible use of this generator configuration in production (it looks quite inefficient).