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
Slimming Strip Calibration Trees output #23045
Conversation
…rom the config gile
modified: CalibTracker/SiStripCommon/plugins/ShallowTracksProducer.cc - double to float modified: CalibTracker/SiStripCommon/plugins/ShallowTracksProducer.cc - std::bitset introduced - mods encapsulated in a preprocessore flag, CALIBTreeDEV Note: std::bitset type still not accepted from ShallowTree
modified: CalibTracker/SiStripCommon/plugins/ShallowEventDataProducer.cc modified: CalibTracker/SiStripCommon/plugins/ShallowGainCalibration.cc modified: CalibTracker/SiStripCommon/plugins/ShallowTracksProducer.cc modified: CalibTracker/SiStripHitEfficiency/interface/HitEff.h modified: CalibTracker/SiStripHitEfficiency/src/HitEff.cc - Unused variables masked behind a preprocessor flag, CALIBTreeDEV - chargeoverpath varable masked modified: CalibTracker/SiStripChannelGain/src/SiStripGainsPCLWorker.cc - chargeoverpath dependencies removed runTheMatrix.py -l 1001.0 successfully passed
- Preprocessor flag changed to ExtendedCALIBTree - Minor indentation mods
…on algo concept in the Hit Efficiency tree
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-23045/4443 Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying a patch in https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-23045/4443/git-diff.patch You can run |
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-23045/4445 |
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages: CalibTracker/Configuration @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @arunhep, @cerminar, @lpernie can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
@arunhep @lpernie The log file claims there is a division by 0:
N.B. This feature is common to any other recent PR and it is not due to the changes proposed here. |
Very nice |
+1 |
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 will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
Greetings,
this PR packages several updates to the CalibTracker code in order to optimize the storage disk consumption of the Strip Calibration ntuples on eos.
Main features added:
TFileService
for theShallowTree
class;ExtendedCALIBTree
;chargeoverpath
(single largest offender) variable masked, in favor of building it via ratio of existingcharge
andpath
;Changes have been proposed and revised by @mdelcourt,@clacaputo,@echabert and @jlagram.
Testing this branch with a O(1k) events from a 2017C ALCARECO file, we get a net reduction of ~ 28% in size.
Going tree by tree:
gainCalibrationTree
tree:anEff
tree:EventInfo
tree:As the code touched here, is used also for the SiStripGains PCL algorithm a dedicated test with O(100k) events has been carried out by using the following commands:
cmsDriver.py step3 --datatier ALCARECO --conditions auto:run2_data -s ALCA:PromptCalibProdSiStripGains --eventcontent ALCARECO -n -1 --dasquery='file dataset=/ZeroBias/Run2016C-SiStripCalMinBias-18Apr2017-v1/ALCARECO run=276097'
followed by:
cmsDriver.py stepMultiHarvest --data --conditions auto:run2_data --scenario pp -s ALCAHARVEST:SiStripGains --filein file:PromptCalibProdSiStripGains.root -n -1 --fileout file:calib.root --customise_command "process.DQMStore.collateHistograms = cms.untracked.bool(True)\nprocess.dqmSaver.saveByRun=cms.untracked.int32(-1)\n process.dqmSaver.saveAtJobEnd=cms.untracked.bool(True)\nprocess.dqmSaver.forceRunNumber=cms.untracked.int32(999999)" --no_exec
to emulate the Multi-Run Harvesting.
No difference is found in the output (the complete histograms comparison is available here)
Just to show two examples: