Notes on 2013 Software Review

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Round 2: 1st time 18 months ago
  • Convened by Bob McKeown
  • Committee:
    • Torre Wenaus  (BNL/ATLAS)  -  Committee Chair
    • Elizabeth Sexton  (FNAL/CMS) 
    • Sergei Gerassimov  (CERN)
    • Martin Purschke  (BNL/PHENIX)
    • David Nathan Brown  (LBL/BaBar)
  • talks:
    • Curtis, overview
    • Mark, computing plan, data challenges
    • David, improvements in reconstruction
    • Justin, analysis workshop: event generators, analysis tools, event classification (BDT), amplitude analysis with AmpTools
    • written material:
      • GlueX Computing document, updated from last time
      • Appendices:
        • data management plan, Lab and Hall D
        • draft analysis plan
        • workflow system requirements
  • Committee summary:
    • cited excellent progress for all Halls during the past 18 months and thought we are on track for data taking
    • For the 12 GeV program as a whole
      • they noted the use of parallel processing schemes,
      • encouraged more use of static and dynamic code profiling.
      • They asked that we consider doing code review for crucial new developments.
      • They also liked that software workshops that have been held, noting that recording of the sessions is valuable for reaching a larger audience.
    • For Hall D
      • they noted the data challenges we have performed, 
      • the fact that the data from DC I was used to support the PAC 40 proposal.
      • They also mentioned the inclusion of QA and data challenge management in our software manpower plan
      • applauded the appointment of a Calibration Coordinator.
      • suggestion to tag events online as good candidates for calibration input
    • Report:
      • An interim report will be made available to Lab management soon
      • the Committee hopes to issue its final report before the end of the year.
  • Personal Comments:
    • we were the only data challenges
    • probably the most comprehensive written material
    • no push back on using JLab-specific tools for JLab farm workflow
    • suggestions on tools: no SRM for data transfer, no LFC file catalog
    • updating tools: can get up-to-date advice, take advantages of recent developments
    • lot of time spent talking about computer center issues
    • overall, easy on us