Dear L2 Pulsar Group: We propose that the tentative agenda of talks with topics to be covered from Ted's email be the Agenda for this Wednesday's L2 Upgrade Readiness Review. If there are no comments by the end of today, the agenda of talks given below will be posted (cdfnews + webtalk page). -- Willis and Rob CDF Operations Group On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Ted Tiehui Liu wrote: >> Pulsar folks: >> >> As you know, we will have the 2rd Installation Readiness Review (IRR) >> this Wed. In the past few weeks, we have made rapid progress >> commissioning the new Pulsar L2 system. The details can be found in the >> Pulsar e-log. We are now preparing for the review. Below is the email >> from Operations Group, and a tentative agenda/talks (please let me know >> if you have any comments). I also attached some of the committee members >> questions for this upcoming review. >> >> >> ====== email from Willis Sakumoto and Rob Roser ============ >> >> Dear L2 Upgrade Readiness Review Committee and L2 Pulsar Group: >> >> The second L2 Pulsar readiness review will be held on the following >> date and location: >> >> Date : Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005 >> Time : 0900-1200 hrs >> Place: ICB-2E >> >> Video is available: use 82Pulsar for the ad-hoc IP. We do not have this >> room after 12PM, so I will try to schedule another room for an hour >> in case it is needed. >> >> The current agenda that I have so far is as follows. The L2 Pulsar >> group should address the issues raised in the first readiness review, >> present the results of beam tests with realistic trigger tables, and >> give the operational readiness status of the Plusar and a timetable for >> integration of the Pulsar starting in March 2005, as recommened in the >> previous readiness review. It is important that the L2 Pulsar be >> integrated as soon as possible, and the Pulsar group should indicate >> the resources it needs from CDF Operations to get their system >> operational. >> >> -- Willis and Rob >> CDF Operations Group >> >> >> ================================================= >> talks: >> >> (1) Introduction Ted 5 mins >> >> (2) System Overview, Commissioning Strategy and Planning: action items >> from last review Cheng-Ju 20+10 mins >> >> (3) Control and decison node related software Daniel 20 +10 mins >> >> (4) PulsarMon Wojtek 10 mins >> >> (5) Fiber Splitting Status for ShowerMax Path Chris 10 mins >> >> (6) Beam Test Results: System Robustness and Timing Performance >> Vadim 20+10 mins >> >> (7) Prepare for Final Operation: what's left to do Ted 15 mins >> >> >> ================= questions from some committee members (received >> tonight) ========= >> Peter Wilson wrote: >> > >>> > Hi Ted, >>> > The following is a list of questions which Jonathan, Kirsten and I put >>> > together for the Pulsar group to answer during the review next week. >>> > I assume you will distribute them to the group as you see fit. >>> > >>> > We have broken them up into three broad categories. >>> > >>> > Peter >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Current readiness for operation >>> > ------------------------------- >>> > 1. Please show for each input data stream, comparison of errors from >>> > new system and legacy system. Are all of the errors seen in the new >>> > system explained (e.g. same as legacy)? >>> > >>> > 2. Have you run the experiment driven by the Pulsar system with all >>> > consumers operating using both coupled and decoupled trigger tables? >>> > If not what work remains to do this test? >>> > >>> > 3. What is the execution from L1 Accept to L2 Decision compared to the >>> > legacy system? >>> > >>> > 4. Is the building of the L2 executable from the trigger table fully >>> > automated and reliable? >>> > >>> > 5. Is the interface to RC complete and reliable? >>> > >>> > 6. What is the status and plan for shift crew training for operation, >>> > debugging and documentation (eg ACE page)? >>> > >>> > 7. What is the status and plan for online monitoring including >>> > documentation and CO instructions? >>> > >>> > 8. Do you have all the necessary operational hardware and spares? Is >>> > the spares pool set aside and documented (not in use in a teststand)? >>> > >>> > >>> > Effort to complete commissioning: >>> > -------------------------------- >>> > 1. Present a detailed plan for completion of commissioning by 3/1. List >>> > of test runs, progression of software etc. These should address all >>> > incomplete items from above. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Configuration and planning for operational system >>> > ---------------------------------------- >>> > 1. What hardware configuration will be used for operations on day one >>> > (3/1) and six months later (9/1)? >>> > o In particular, what signals will be split/fanned-out? Explain >>> > purpose for each set duplicate signals. >>> > o Which crates will be used for Pulsar boards? >>> > >>> > 2. What is the pager rotation plan? >>> > >>> > 3. Are there web pages with instructions for pager carriers? >>> > >>> > 4. Operational support plan for hardware. >>> > o Long term Teststand needs >>> > >>> > 5. Support plan for software (individual and institutional) >>> > o Who is responsible support of infrastructure software (eg Trigger >>> > DB, RC...)? >>> > o Who is responsible for maintaining trigger algorithm code? >>> > o Who is responsible monitoring: online, offline, and DQM? >>> > >>> > 6. What institutions have/will be signing operational MOUs for Pulsar >>> > system support and for what parts of the system? >>> > >>> > 7. For how long do we need to maintain the legacy system? >>> > o Powered with full support ('Hot Spare') >>> > o Unpowered but intact ('Cold Spare') >>> >