Physics selection: online changes & QA

M Floris, JF Grosse-OetringhausWeekly offline meeting30/01/2011

1

The problem• PbPb 2011 run frequent changes of trigger configuration (trigger class

names, offline selection...)

• Did not propagate quickly enough from the trunk to the aliroot version used for the QA/AOD (i.e. the release)

• The main issue is related to trigger class names (no name no data)

• The configuration is written in the OADB

• Possible solutions:

• Use a custom configuration in the QA macros (by hand)

• OADB on alien, path containing rev number, path given on JDL

• QA with analysis tag (one may need 1 tag/day + additional delays)

212/10/11 Alice Physics Forum

Preferred

https://savannah.cern.ch/bugs/?89170

OADB on alien• Path contains the rev number, it’s written in JDL:

• SplitArguments = {"/alice/…/#alienfilename# alien:////…/oadb_rev12345"};

• OADB size: ~ 29 MB (and counting), 80% centrality calibration

• What it solves:

• New trigger class names, improved selection with already existing cuts

• Improved centrality calibration

• What it does not solve:

• An unforeseen selection cut is needed: this requires changing the classes (e.g. in 2010 we realized in the middle of the run that parasitic collisions could be rejected with ZDC)

• Backward compatibility: if a new selection/calibration is implemented, this can in principle affect earlier runs (reprocessing old runs with the new OADB may change them)

• If a class in OADB changes in the trunk, the new OADB may not be compatible with the rev (can be solved by policy)

312/10/11 Alice Physics Forum

Status• Local test successful (reading from Grid, as on a WN)

• Job sent on the grid failed (all subjobs either expired or went into EIB)

• Forensics (Latchezar): “jobs which ran killed for high memory consumption”

• Local test w/ valgrind: no issue spotted

• We believe this is not related to OADB

• Request: make a full test on a run which was already reconstructed in the standard production

• “The tests can be run after we finish with the Pb processing.”

• Comments? Suggestions? Conclusions?

412/10/11 Alice Physics Forum