> I'm going to develop MIDAS DAQ for COMET experiment.
> I'm thinking to distribute the load of event building to different PCs.
> I attach a schematics of one of the examples of the design.

Your schematic is reminiscent of the T2K/ND280 structure where the MIDAS DAQ
was split into several separate MIDAS instances (separate "experiments": the FGD, the TPC, 
the slow controls, etc).

They were joined together by the "cascade" equipment which provided a path
for the data events to flow from subsidiary midas instances to the main system (the one
with the final mlogger). It also provided a reverse path for run control, where starting
a run in the main experiment also started the run in all the subsidiary experiments.

This cascade frontend was never included in the midas distribution (an oversight),
but I still have the code for it somewhere.

How many "frontend PC" components do you envision? (10, 100, 1000?).

In T2K/ND280, each subsidiary experiment had it's own ODB which made sense
because e.g. the FGD and the TPC were quite different and were managed by different
groups.

But for you it probably makes sense to have one common ODB. This means a MIDAS
structure where ODB is located on the main computer ("event builder PC"),
all others connect to it via the mserver and midas rpc.

But you will need to have the MIDAS shared event buffers on each "frontend PC" to be local,
which means the bm_xxx() functions have run locally instead of throuhg the mserver rpc.
This is not how midas works right now, but it could be modified to do this.

On the other hand, you do not have to use midas to write the "frontend pc" code. Today's
C++ provides enough features - threads, locks, mutexes, shared memories, event queues,
etc so you can write the whole sub-event builder as one monolithic c++ program
and use midas only to send the data to the main event builder. (plus midas rpc to handle
run control). In this scheme, technically, this "frontend pc" program would
be a multithreaded midas frontend.

K.O.