Workflow 511.1: herwig7+ MG5+Openloops pptoee at NLO QCD #24813
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-24813/6758 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @Andrej-CMS 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 workflow 511.1 |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
upgrade-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
upgrade-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 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 |
|
@alberto-sanchez @smuzaffar I notice that this test quite often goes in TimeOut because the LHE calculation is quite heavy (I guess). Although it could be useful to have defined fragments, do you think it is fundamental to probe regularly this code at every IB? |
|
Not really. I think we really would to have it when the involved libraries or relevant code is updated. |
|
@alberto-sanchez yes please, unless @smuzaffar has some bright idea I do not think it makes sense to have a test that most of the times fails with a TimeOut problem. This looks more suitable for standalone checks |
|
@fabiocos , we have a way to customize the timeout per release per workflow. So if no objections I can see timeout for workflow 511.1 to be 3 hours? |
|
I agree - perhaps a simpler process could be tested instead?
… On Oct 11, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote:
@alberto-sanchez @smuzaffar I notice that this test quite often goes in TimeOut because the LHE calculation is quite heavy (I guess). Although it could be useful to have defined fragments, do you think it is fundamental to probe regularly this code at every IB?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
almost all the time is taken by the initialization (before first event) in step1. If we can improve this time then we are fine. Rest of the job just took less than a minute for 10 events. [a] [b] Step1 log |
|
@smuzaffar @davidlange6 it is the openloops calculation at the beginning that takes all the time. If people wants to test it, I do not know whether there is something simpler that might be tried, @Andrej-CMS could you please comment? Otherwise a 3 hours timeout would do the job for what i could see in my check |
|
On Oct 16, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote:
@smuzaffar @davidlange6 it is the openloops calculation at the beginning that takes all the time. If people wants to test it, I do not know whether there is
Right - i presume that the time for that calculation depends on the physics process...I'll take a look just for fun
… something simpler that might be tried, @Andrej-CMS could you please comment? Otherwise a 3 hours timeout would do the job for what i could see in my check
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
the time is taken by the integration of phase space by mg5+openloops. The card has pp->ee +1j. I'm not aware of any easier/faster process at NLO QCD. |
|
Hi
So have you discussed how this fits into the CMS production infrastructure then? It would be quite wasteful if the usual procedure is followed (8 hour jobs running GEN-SIM with threads)?
otherwise, I tried running this application through igprof - aside from the mystery that it runs much faster (eg, 45 minutes), its straightforward to speed up the initialization I believe. Are there Q/A plots in the DQM for this workflow?
(but first i need to convince myself that the same job is running with and without igprof...)
… On Oct 17, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Andrej-CMS ***@***.***> wrote:
@fabiocos
the time is taken by the integration of phase space by mg5+openloops. The card has pp->ee +1j. I'm not aware of any easier/faster process at NLO QCD.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
On Oct 18, 2018, at 9:38 AM, David Lange ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi
So have you discussed how this fits into the CMS production infrastructure then? It would be quite wasteful if the usual procedure is followed (8 hour jobs running GEN-SIM with threads)?
otherwise, I tried running this application through igprof - aside from the mystery that it runs much faster (eg, 45 minutes), its straightforward to speed up the initialization I believe. Are there Q/A plots in the DQM for this workflow?
(but first i need to convince myself that the same job is running with and without igprof...)
ok, it seems it makes a big difference if one reruns in a directory that has the Herwig-scratch area already present or not. Starting again from scratch
…
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Andrej-CMS ***@***.***> wrote:
>
> @fabiocos
>
> the time is taken by the integration of phase space by mg5+openloops. The card has pp->ee +1j. I'm not aware of any easier/faster process at NLO QCD.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
>
|
|
Are there Q/A plots in the DQM for this workflow?
There was no answer to this - can someone help? (I have another factor of several in speed improvement...)
…
(but first i need to convince myself that the same job is running with and without igprof...)
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Andrej-CMS ***@***.***> wrote:
>
> @fabiocos
>
> the time is taken by the integration of phase space by mg5+openloops. The card has pp->ee +1j. I'm not aware of any easier/faster process at NLO QCD.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
>
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@efeyazgan @qliphy |
|
@davidlange6 @prebello I am not sure I understand the question. But if you want to check the DQM plots, you may do as following: CMSSW_10_3_0 |
|
sure. the question is if there are relevant plots for this physics process included?
… On Nov 2, 2018, at 11:12 PM, Qiang Li ***@***.***> wrote:
@davidlange6 @prebello I am not sure I understand the question. But if you want to check the DQM plots, you may do as following:
CMSSW_10_3_0
runTheMatrix -l 511.1
and after finishing the run, do
cmsRun step3_HARVESTING.py
then you can find all the plots inside the DQM*root file.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@davidlange6 Yes, from above procedure, I find plots like these ones:
|
New workflow for testing Openloops with Herwig7