Dear Mr. Olchanski

Thank you for your comment.
We exect the number of readout channels is ~1000, boards ~100 and the frontend pc <10.	
We expect that trigger rate is a few kHz.

Writing monolithic c++ code may need complete understanding on midas,
and I will consider more about writing from scratch or modifying midas code.

Best regards
Hiroaki Natori

> > 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.