Seperated relval_generator.py into two files to have an extended version

[inugent]

Breaking the relval_generator.py python script into two files to have both a standard generator and an extended relval sequence as discuss at the DQM/PdmV joint meeting yesterday.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @inugent for CMSSW_7_2_X.

Seperated relval_generator.py into two files to have an extended version

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/PyReleaseValidation

@cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @franzoni, @nclopezo, @vlimant can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 4e18f82
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5149/785/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5149/785/summary.html

[franzoni]

thanks Ian for following up to the discussion of last week, and splitting the workflows in two groups. We'll follow up with operational questions in a separate email thread, w/ relevalnt people.

Projecting the cpu time for 1M events (see below a detailed breakdown of cpu times for 1k events) one gets 200-300k secs for the bulk of the workflows, on par with standard full sim relvals - we want to avoid using this much extra cpu.
Can we preserve the physics content of the comparison by reducing the samples size to 100k (or 250k) ? Is there a quantifiable need of 1M events, other than a legacy value ?
(reminder: the outcome of this discussion should feed into the creation of the inpug /GEN datasets)

Cheers,
g.

501.0_MinBias_TuneZ2star_ time: 51.7291
502.0_QCD_Pt-30_TuneZ2star_ time: 144.888
503.0_MinBias_ time: 92.5069
504.0_QCD_Pt-30_ time: 286.94
505.0_DYToLL_M-50_ time: 243.914
506.0_WToLNu_ time: 237.444
507.0_SoftQCDDiffractive_ time: 24.2213
508.0_SoftQCDnonDiffractive_ time: 126.668
509.0_SoftQCDelastic_ time: 2.63361
510.0_SoftQCDinelastic_ time: 96.2264
511.0_QCD_Pt-30_8TeV_herwigpp+QCD_Pt-30_ : time: 159.665
512.0_ZJetsLL_ time: 127.637
513.0_WJetsLNu_ time: 128.888
514.0_GGToH_ time: 280.251
515.0_ZJetsLLtaupinu_ time: 114.447
516.0_WJetsLNutaupinu_ time: 126.344
517.0_GGToHtaupinu_ time: 270.957
518.0_ZJetsLLtaurhonu_ time: 129.033
519.0_WJetsLNutaurhonu_ time: 122.678
520.0_GGToHtaurhonu_ time: 257.857
521.0_TT_ time: 105.162
522.0_DYToLL_M-50_ time: 130.401
523.0_WToLNu_ time: 119.284
524.0_GGToH_ time: 260.594
525.0_WToLNutaupinu_ time: 124.321
526.0_DYToLLtaupinu_M-50_ time: 122.713
527.0_GGToHtaupinu_ time: 269.994
528.0_WToLNutaurhonu_ time: 132.142
529.0_DYToLLtaurhonu_M-50_ time: 121.893
530.0_GGToHtaurhonu_ time: 267.631
531.0_ReggeGribovPartonMC_EposLHC_ time: 454.795

[franzoni]

hello @inugent, can we settle on the number of events question I was asking?
If we do by tomorrow morning, this change could enter pre6.

[inugent]

Hello,
250k events should be ok. The number 1M was for the tau decays, but not that we have specific channels tau->pinu an dtau->rho nu in the validation, we can reduce it. Best regards,
Ian

[franzoni]

+1
ok Ian, thanks for the confirmation.
I'll place a separate PR with the modificaiton to the stats (so that we can get this one move forward)

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_2_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine).