Thanks Maher.

Given your numbers - which are quite similar to my guess! - I'll let the
"made up" paragraphs stand.  You'll find them in the section "planning"
of the current draft.

The numbers that I made up are twice as large as your numbers.  Perhaps
my numbers are reasonable when we add backgrounds to the analysis.

				nate

Maher wrote:
> 
> Hi Nate,
> 
> Here are the results of the CPU estimates:
> 
> GEANT     180.00 +/- 50 ms/event
> ANALYSIS  150.00 +/- 50 ms/event
> 
> GEANT was run on a CELERON 530. The analysis was run on mitch and
> a PII 450 with similar results on both machines.
> 
> Assuming a P III 1.0 GHZ dual pentium would cut this time by a
> factor of 4 (2 because its a faster machine and 2 for the 2 CPU's):
> 
> GEANT     45.00 ms/event
> ANALYSIS  40.00 ms/event
> 
> For 10^8 events:
> 
> GEANT     52 days
> ANALYSIS  46 days
> 
> I would think it is reasonable to consider between 5-10 such machines
> in the coming year. I would tend to think, however, that it will
> be about 1 year before we understand the detector/analysis well
> enough so as to need the full generation and analysis of 10^8 events.
> Most of the calibrations will not require the analysis of this many
> events. So we might want to delay the purchase of the machines
> until we need them.
> 
> For the full analysis we will need atb gas least 20 machines to make
> the analysis time reasonable, but hopefully by then CPU's would be
> few factors faster.
> 
> Uncertainties:
> --------------
> 
> GEANT:
> 
> 1. Rob has been working on changing the way the digitization is done
> to make the Monte Carlo run faster, but he is still trying to fix a bug,
> so we're not sure how much of an impact this will make (perhaps as much
> as 40 ms/event).
> 
> 2. GEANT has not been optimized for CPU time. This remains a project that
> needs to be done, and might be a good summer student project wokring closely
> with Peter Gumplinger. It's not clear how much CPU we will gain from this.
> 
> 3. There are other things that are still to be added to the Monte Carlo.
> I wouldn't think that they will result with more than an additional 50
> ms/event.
> 
> Balancing all these factors I think the estimate above is reasonable.
> 
> Analysis:
> 
> 1. The big uncertainty in the analysis has to do with the number of iterations
> we need (once the TDC time is put in) for the Kalman filter to converge, as a
> result of the drift distance dependence on the track angle. This should become
> clearer in the next few months.
> 
> 2. Once the timing is put in, there will be some addititonal calculations
> in each iteration of the Kalman filter that will increase the CPU time.
> 
> 3. The Kalman filter has not been optimized for CPU. I'm not sure at the moment
> how much optimization can be done.
> 
> 4. There are other calculations that will be done per event as we add more code
> to the analysis.
> 
> These factors might suggest that we need more CPU time for the analysis, but
> I think the number of iterations I assumed in this calculations is more than
> we will actually need, so the estimated CPU time might turn out to be reasonable.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Maher
> --
> ==================================================================
>    Maher Quraan                            TRIUMF
>    TRIUMF TWIST Collaboration              http://www.triumf.ca
>    email: quraan@triumf.ca                 4004 Wesbrook Mall
>    phone: (604)222-1047 ext. 6333          Vancouver, BC
>    fax:   (604)222-1074                    Canada V6T 2A3
> 
>                 http://www.thehungersite.com/
> 
> ==================================================================

-- 
Nathan Rodning, Associate Chair
Professor of Physics
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta   T6G 2J1
Canada
(780) 492-3518  /  Fax:  (780) 492-0714
http://www.thehungersite.com/

Created for the The Center for Subatomic Research E614 Project Projects Page.

Created by The CoCoBoard.