Hi,
That crash indicates there is a sync event being read that does not have the expected bank structure. We have a utility method that gets the int data from the bank of a control event like sync, pre start, etc. This code is crashing on those files because the int data ends up pointing to null for the bank that it finds.
I suspect that the DAQ config was changed so that the control event structure is different now or it is missing the int data. Maybe it can be reverted. We should verify this with an EVIO to XML dump.
I can add some null pointer checks to the event builder code when it tries to use this data, which should be there anyway. It is mostly just being used for informational messages anyways.
--Jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle McCarty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 10:36 AM
To: Nathan Baltzell
Cc: Benjamin Raydo; McCormick, Jeremy I.; Maurik Holtrop
Subject: Re: Database Changes
Hello Nathan,
There was no file called "hps_004000.evio.0" but there was one called "led_004000.evio.0". Is this what you meant? I tried to convert it to LCIO using the command
java -cp $HPS_JAVA org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio -R 4000 -d HPS-ECalCommissioning -l led_004000.slcio -t pass0 led_004000.evio.0
but was immediately given the following NullPointerException:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.hps.evio.LCSimTestRunEventBuilder.readEvioEvent(LCSimTestRunEventBuilder.java:54)
at org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio.run(EvioToLcio.java:420)
at org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio.main(EvioToLcio.java:126)
It seems like the software is having trouble with newer EVIO files.
- Kyle
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Nathan Baltzell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I didn’t mean mode-1 wasn’t important! Just suspicious that that may be
why our code is not working for those files. See if that mode-7 run still “works”.
If so, then probably something is broken in our code for mode-1.
-Nathan
On Feb 23, 2015, at 20:22, Benjamin Raydo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mode 1 raw. This is very important to be able to process because it allows us to use this same data to powerfully debug (by either playing back through hardware simulations and/or observe raw waveforms to understand behavior).
>
> As a side comment, we should plan to peform these runs occassionally during physics runs or I could consider to have the FADC report raw events every Nth event if that was of interest.
>
> Ben
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nathan Baltzell <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:02/23/2015 8:08 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Kyle McCarty <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Jeremy McCormick <[log in to unmask]>, Maurik Holtrop <[log in to unmask]>, Benjamin Raydo <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Database Changes
>
> Hmmm, what FADC mode are those 4011 and 4012 runs using?
> Probably Ben knows.
>
> This is a recent mode-7 run for LEDs:
> /volatile/hallb/hps/led/hps_004000.evio.0
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Kyle McCarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jeremy,
> >
> > I no longer get that error. Now, it just runs and then promptly indicates that no events were processed, producing an empty SLCIO file. I tested the same command on an earlier run, 3260, and found that it correctly processed events, so this seems to be an issue localized to these newer files. Who would I contact to to investigate this? I presume that something may have changed in the EVIO format that is causing the issue, but I do not really know.
> >
> > Note that the file can be found at
> >
> > clondaq5:/data/hps/hps_0004011.evio
> > clondaq5:/data/hps/hps_0004012.evio
> >
> > if that is helpful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:47 PM, McCormick, Jeremy I. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I already modified the database so that the ranges for ecal_channels in pass0 and pass1 are now 2000 to 9999 which should be good enough. So I believe that should fix the problem. Let me know either way...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kyle McCarty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:40 PM
> > To: Nathan Baltzell
> > Cc: McCormick, Jeremy I.; Maurik Holtrop
> > Subject: Re: Database Changes
> >
> > The two runs he gave me were 4011 and 4012.
> >
> >
> > - Kyle
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Nathan Baltzell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > with the same command line argument. I suspect that this is caused because I am trying to run on the data that Ben recently produced to test the new firmware. Are there existing conditions for this data?
> >
> > Probably not (what is the run number). The pass0/pass1 tags for ecal_channels were apparently only created
> > for a limited range up to 3406. New tags/conditions should go to some large run number, e.g. 9999999.
> > Jeremy, can I modify the database to see if extending the run range of those conditions fixes the problem?
> >
> > -Nathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:29 PM, Kyle McCarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, it looks like the change was made recently, as updating now causes it to be recognized. I now get the error:
> > >
> > > Exception in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException: No conditions were found with key: ecal_channels
> > > at org.hps.conditions.database.ConditionsObjectConverter.getData(ConditionsObjectConverter.java:90)
> > > at org.lcsim.conditions.CachedConditionsImplementation.getCachedData(CachedConditionsImplementation.java:20)
> > > at org.hps.conditions.database.DatabaseConditionsManager.getCollection(DatabaseConditionsManager.java:270)
> > > at org.hps.conditions.ecal.EcalConditionsConverter.getEcalChannelCollection(EcalConditionsConverter.java:33)
> > > at org.hps.conditions.ecal.EcalConditionsConverter.getData(EcalConditionsConverter.java:60)
> > > at org.hps.conditions.ecal.EcalConditionsConverter.getData(EcalConditionsConverter.java:28)
> > > at org.lcsim.conditions.CachedConditionsImplementation.getCachedData(CachedConditionsImplementation.java:20)
> > > at org.hps.evio.ECalEvioReader.initialize(ECalEvioReader.java:421)
> > > at org.hps.evio.LCSimTestRunEventBuilder.conditionsChanged(LCSimTestRunEventBuilder.java:186)
> > > at org.lcsim.conditions.ConditionsManagerImplementation.fireConditionsChanged(ConditionsManagerImplementation.java:122)
> > > at org.lcsim.conditions.ConditionsManagerImplementation.setConditionsReader(ConditionsManagerImplementation.java:69)
> > > at org.lcsim.conditions.ConditionsManagerImplementation.setDetector(ConditionsManagerImplementation.java:53)
> > > at org.hps.conditions.database.DatabaseConditionsManager.initialize(DatabaseConditionsManager.java:345)
> > > at org.hps.conditions.database.DatabaseConditionsManager.setDetector(DatabaseConditionsManager.java:290)
> > > at org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio.checkConditions(EvioToLcio.java:637)
> > > at org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio.run(EvioToLcio.java:300)
> > > at org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio.main(EvioToLcio.java:126)
> > >
> > > with the same command line argument. I suspect that this is caused because I am trying to run on the data that Ben recently produced to test the new firmware. Are there existing conditions for this data?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Kyle
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Kyle McCarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Hello Jeremy,
> > >
> > > No, the steering file is what I use to run trigger diagnostics. Using with EvioToLcio seems to fail for me too, though. Was this a very recent change? Trying it gives me:
> > >
> > > tableName: ecal_time_shiftsException in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException: EVIO file pass0 does not exist.
> > > at org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio.run(EvioToLcio.java:324)
> > > at org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio.main(EvioToLcio.java:125)
> > >
> > > This is from the command line command:
> > >
> > > java -cp $HPS_JAVA org.hps.evio.EvioToLcio -t pass0 -R 4011 -d HPS-ECalCommissioning -l hps_004011.slcio hps_004011.evio
> > >
> > > Any idea what's going on here?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Kyle
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Nathan Baltzell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > I think the -t option is specific to the EvioToLcio class.
> > > I don't know what that steering file is doing, but I'd guess it's not EvioToLcio?
> > > -Nathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:04 PM, Kyle McCarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Jeremy,
> > > >
> > > > The "<tag>pass0</tag>" method works for me, and using this seems to restore my results to the previous efficiency state. If I try to use the command line "-t pass0" command, I get the error
> > > >
> > > > Exception in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException: Too many extra arguments.
> > > > at org.lcsim.job.JobControlManager.parseCommandLineOptions(JobControlManager.java:311)
> > > > at org.lcsim.job.JobControlManager.run(JobControlManager.java:184)
> > > > at org.hps.job.JobManager.main(JobManager.java:18)
> > > >
> > > > For the record, the command line argument was
> > > >
> > > > java -jar $HPS_JAVA ../../steering/GTPReadoutTest.lcsim -i hps_003260.slcio -DoutputFile="output/testout" -n 15 -t pass0
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Kyle
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Baltzell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > Hi Jeremy,
> > > >
> > > > So I did an svn up and the -t pass0 switch seems to work, however it is difficult
> > > > to say for sure since the db initialization is no longer printing again. All I can be
> > > > sure of at the moment is that it is no longer crashing. Kyle should test this too
> > > > and verify that his trigger efficiency goes back to what it was a week ago.
> > > >
> > > > One thing that would be very useful is a tag switch for the the DB's command line
> > > > interface's print command. E.g. "give me the constants for a given table tagged
> > > > with pass0". Last I checked (this morning) it wasn't an option.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Nathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Nathan Baltzell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jeremy,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not run since this morning, and it was on data.
> > > > > I’ll try again tonight to see if the problem is gone and let you know.
> > > > > Kyle is also running on data.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> <driver name="ConditionsDriver" type="org.hps.conditions.ConditionsDriver">
> > > > >> <tag>pass0</tag>
> > > > >> </driver>
> > > > >
> > > > > To be sure, should this work in the pass1 steering file with the pass1 jar file?
> > > > > Or do I need to update and recompile the source code used for pass1?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> But I'm also not fully understanding why the efficiency would be completely destroyed if you switched to pass1 conditions instead of pass0. In theory, the pass1 conditions should be better, right? So we need to verify first that it isn't finding something completely crazy when it loads conditions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Trigger studies must use same pedestals/gains as the DAQ did when the data was acquired.
> > > > > Pass1 constants may be an improvement for resolution etc, but not for trigger studies.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 17:38, McCormick, Jeremy I. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi, Kyle/Nathan.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Are you running these studies on the data or is this MC?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What is the log saying about which conditions sets are being found by the manager when you run your job?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you verify with Nathan that the correct conditions sets for your analysis are being found or if it is not finding them correctly?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If you need to replicate pass0 conditions then using the trunk you can do...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> EvioToLcio -t pass0 [args]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Or use the ConditionsDriver in your lcsim job as I've outlined before in emails like...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <driver name="ConditionsDriver" type="org.hps.conditions.ConditionsDriver">
> > > > >> <tag>pass0</tag>
> > > > >> </driver>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd like to know if that fixes the problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But I'm also not fully understanding why the efficiency would be completely destroyed if you switched to pass1 conditions instead of pass0. In theory, the pass1 conditions should be better, right? So we need to verify first that it isn't finding something completely crazy when it loads conditions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> By the way, your "external" jobs should now see exactly what is in the JLAB database, as we've switched to using a replica db as of today. It should basically always be up to date automatically with what is in the prod db @ JLAB.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --Jeremy
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Kyle McCarty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > >> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 7:26 PM
> > > > >> To: Nathan Baltzell
> > > > >> Cc: McCormick, Jeremy I.
> > > > >> Subject: Re: Database Changes
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I wonder if it was because I ran from home? I forgot that the SLAC database had to synch with the JLab database. Maybe that is why it still worked for me early in the week, but not now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Anyway, I agree that we should have a separate set of values for trigger studies.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Kyle
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Feb 22, 2015 10:15 PM, "Nathan Baltzell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The pass1 changes to the database happened on Saturday, Feb 14, midday.
> > > > >> Nothing has changed in the database to my knowledge since then.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Nathan
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Feb 22, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Kyle McCarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Hello Nathan,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I remember you talking about the changes. When did they go online? I recall that everything was working the same on Monday/Tuesday. I had thought they were in before that, so I didn't think the new values had affected anything.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I'll wait for Jeremy to comment and see if I can get it running with the old values then.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Kyle
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Feb 22, 2015 10:08 PM, "Nathan Baltzell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >> > Hi Kyle,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Yes, there were changes to the database for pass1 that
> > > > >> > were announced a week and a half ago:
> > > > >> > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1502&L=HPS-SOFTWARE&F=&S=&P=55872
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > For trigger of course you need the gains that were used by the DAQ.
> > > > >> > The only way to do that without hardcoding currently is to use the tag "pass0",
> > > > >> > since one of our FADC crates's config banks is currently unreadable in java.
> > > > >> > Maybe Jeremy can help us on how to use a tag.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -Nathan
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Feb 22, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Kyle McCarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hello Nathan,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Did you make changes to the database conditions (the database printout says you were the last person to upload)? I am trying to run the trigger diagnostics and it cluster verification went from a 95% match to 0.8% or less match since the last time I ran it (no code changes). Also, the GTP diagnostic text is showing inputs hits from my test events as having significantly different energies. See the following:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > New:
> > > > >> > > Event Hit Collection:
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.044 GeV at (-10, 2) and at t = 4.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.300 GeV at ( -7, -2) and at t = 164.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.113 GeV at ( -6, -2) and at t = 148.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.042 GeV at ( -5, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.247 GeV at ( -5, -2) and at t = 156.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.206 GeV at ( -5, -2) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.110 GeV at ( -4, -3) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 1.092 GeV at ( -4, -2) and at t = 32.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.044 GeV at ( -3, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.079 GeV at ( -3, -2) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.135 GeV at ( -2, -2) and at t = 120.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.017 GeV at ( -1, -1) and at t = 112.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.047 GeV at ( -1, 1) and at t = 116.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.054 GeV at ( -1, 1) and at t = 4.00
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Event Cluster Collection:
> > > > >> > > Cluster --> 1.573 GeV at ( -4, -2) and at t = 32.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 1.092 GeV at ( -4, -2) and at t = 32.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.042 GeV at ( -5, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.206 GeV at ( -5, -2) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.110 GeV at ( -4, -3) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.044 GeV at ( -3, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.079 GeV at ( -3, -2) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Old:
> > > > >> > > Event Hit Collection:
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.040 GeV at (-10, 2) and at t = 4.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.281 GeV at ( -7, -2) and at t = 164.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.034 GeV at ( -6, -2) and at t = 148.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.021 GeV at ( -5, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.267 GeV at ( -5, -2) and at t = 156.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.119 GeV at ( -5, -2) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.079 GeV at ( -4, -3) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.890 GeV at ( -4, -2) and at t = 32.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.029 GeV at ( -3, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> 0.047 GeV at ( -3, -2) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.126 GeV at ( -2, -2) and at t = 120.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.026 GeV at ( -1, -1) and at t = 112.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.046 GeV at ( -1, 1) and at t = 116.00
> > > > >> > > Hit --> -0.052 GeV at ( -1, 1) and at t = 4.00
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Event Cluster Collection:
> > > > >> > > Cluster --> 1.186 GeV at ( -4, -2) and at t = 32.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.890 GeV at ( -4, -2) and at t = 32.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.021 GeV at ( -5, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.119 GeV at ( -5, -2) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.079 GeV at ( -4, -3) and at t = 36.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.029 GeV at ( -3, -3) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > > CompHit --> 0.047 GeV at ( -3, -2) and at t = 44.00
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > You can see that the this creates a fairly significant difference in the resultant values, and no longer matches the SSP data at all. Is there a way that I can revert to using the old conditions? Otherwise, I basically can't test anything or check the behavior of the December runs.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Kyle
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1
|
