eic
ep/eA Performance Test Scripts
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
This PR introduces tools to investigate the ep/eA simulation performance issue (currently it is too slow).
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
- [ ] Bug fix (issue #__)
- [x] New feature (issue #__)
- [ ] Documentation update
- [ ] Other: __
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
- [ ] Tests for the changes have been added
- [ ] Documentation has been added / updated
- [x] Changes have been communicated to collaborators
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
No, it only adds tools
Does this PR change default behavior?
No.
@Chao1009 This is very helpful, but why do the individual detector entries not seem to fill anytime, but "all_ff" does - what is it actually checking?
Why does the e_beamline have anything to do with protons?
It's the electron beampipe. Sorry for the confusing naming.
@Chao1009 This is very helpful, but why do the individual detector entries not seem to fill anytime, but "all_ff" does - what is it actually checking?
This is to check the "process time" for each detector component in the farforward.xml with 275 GeV/c protons.
That was for specific theta and phi (theta = 0-5 mrad, phi = 0). The beampipe itself takes too much time so the other components (~ms) appear to be zero height.
I am still figuring out the best angle ranges for the test. Below is the test for theta = 16.0 - 16.2 mrad with phi = pi,
Ah okay, so if you have a significant number of particles hitting the electron beam-pipe, then you likely don't have the crossing angle applied. What input sample are you using for the testing?
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:25 AM Chao Peng @.***> wrote:
Why does the e_beamline have anything to do with protons?
It's the electron beampipe. Sorry for the confusing naming.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/eic/epic/pull/486#issuecomment-1699173177, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADABSF7JWZ3TUKYALZ6ZIU3XX45M7ANCNFSM6AAAAAA2QYR6EM . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>
--
Alex Jentsch Assistant Staff Scientist, EIC Directorate Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973
Bldg. 510, 2-234 Phone (office): 631-344-2139 Phone (cell): 281-726-0114
Pronouns: he/him/his
Ah okay, so if you have a significant number of particles hitting the electron beam-pipe, then you likely don't have the crossing angle applied. What input sample are you using for the testing?
I am shooting single particles directly.
Okay, then you need to make sure the particles have the -25mrad crossing angle applied, otherwise the angular range is hard to make sense of.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:32 AM Chao Peng @.***> wrote:
Ah okay, so if you have a significant number of particles hitting the electron beam-pipe, then you likely don't have the crossing angle applied. What input sample are you using for the testing?
I am shooting single particles directly.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/eic/epic/pull/486#issuecomment-1699183954, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADABSF6U4NRJDIBRNY3FMKDXX46FDANCNFSM6AAAAAA2QYR6EM . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>
--
Alex Jentsch Assistant Staff Scientist, EIC Directorate Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973
Bldg. 510, 2-234 Phone (office): 631-344-2139 Phone (cell): 281-726-0114
Pronouns: he/him/his
It adds code that isn't tested in CI. Does it work? Does it still work? It isn't possible to tell when it stops working. This fits more in the snippets repository, in detector benchmarks, and only here if integrated in a CI pipeline.
That's a good suggestion, I think. @Chao1009 , @ajentsch , can you move these scripts over to https://github.com/eic/snippets?