Brad's comments on scalers » History » Version 1
Richard Trotta, 12/03/2020 10:47 AM
| 1 | 1 | Richard Trotta | h1. Brad Sawatzky's comments on scalers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | |||
| 3 | In general the scaler trees for each arm expose the scaler data for |
||
| 4 | modules associated with that arm (likely stating the obvious). However, |
||
| 5 | a number of signals are fanned out to two scaler modules, one in each |
||
| 6 | arm. If you're running in 'COIN mode' (single DAQ for both arms), then |
||
| 7 | the counts for those duplicated signals should be (basically) identical. |
||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | Strictly speaking the content of the two scaler trees is entirely |
||
| 10 | controlled by the analyzer software configuration (THcScaler* configs). |
||
| 11 | |||
| 12 | Known reasons for discrepancies between the two scalers viewing the same |
||
| 13 | signal could include: |
||
| 14 | - There appears to be a problem with some of the "G0 scalers". |
||
| 15 | Apparently they have a bit-flip issue. Steve documented this here: |
||
| 16 | https://hallcweb.jlab.org/DocDB/0010/001058/001/Scaler_Problem.pdf |
||
| 17 | - If the scaler channels you're seeing issues with are in the same |
||
| 18 | physical modules, then that is almost certainly your problem. |
||
| 19 | - Mitigations are discussed in that file as well. (Carlos should |
||
| 20 | be familiar with this.) |
||
| 21 | |||
| 22 | - Electronic artifacts and low-level timing differences in the gating |
||
| 23 | between the two scalers |
||
| 24 | - Should only be a difference of a few counts at most on high-rate |
||
| 25 | channels |
||
| 26 | |||
| 27 | |||
| 28 | You do need to be mindful that the HMS 'trigger scalers' may be |
||
| 29 | different than the 'SHMS trigger scalers'. Each arm has a scaler that |
||
| 30 | counts the 'T1, T2,...' trigger signals plugged into each arm's Trigger |
||
| 31 | Master module. Those are not necessarily the same triggers, but the |
||
| 32 | names can be confusing because each arm can have its own set of T1, T2, |
||
| 33 | .... The trigger assignments are documented in HCLog entries, and |
||
| 34 | should also be reflected in the hcana scaler configuration git commits. |
||
| 35 | |||
| 36 | If you're looking at Coincidence-mode runs, and you think you're looking |
||
| 37 | at the same hardware signals in two different modules, then try plotting |
||
| 38 | the /difference/ between the two duplicate scaler channels for each |
||
| 39 | scaler read (note scalers are read out periodically, not on every |
||
| 40 | trigger). It would be interesting to see one duplicate is always |
||
| 41 | reading X% more than the other, or if they are generally identical |
||
| 42 | except form some occasional outliers. |
||
| 43 | |||
| 44 | the scaler dbase/param files should shed a lot of insight into |
||
| 45 | the hardware configuration (without having to get eyes on the physical |
||
| 46 | setup). For direct duplications, we typically jumper an entire 16 |
||
| 47 | channel ribbon cable across 2 scaler modules, so you'll see two 16 |
||
| 48 | channel groups in the dbase files that have identical names in the same |
||
| 49 | order. |
||
| 50 | |||
| 51 | If you see a situation where an HMS scaler channel and an SHMS scaler |
||
| 52 | channel have the same 'name' but they are not embedded in a block of 16 |
||
| 53 | other identical channels, then you'll want to look a little more closely |
||
| 54 | at the details to see if they are really individually fanned out copies |
||
| 55 | of the same channel, or if it is a 'similar name' issue. For example, |
||
| 56 | one channel is the SHMS arm 'T3', and the other is the HMS arm 'T3'. |
||
| 57 | (In that case it is possible they are looking at different input |
||
| 58 | signals.) |