I cannot checkout from the cvs server. So I download each latest file from the WWW
interface of CVS. While compiling these files, I encountered the following problems:
-------------
...
g++ -DHAVE_ROOT -c -g -O2 -Wall -Iinclude -Idrivers -Ldarwin/lib -DINCLUDE_FTPLIB  
-DOS_LINUX -DOS_DARWIN -DHAVE_STRLCPY -fPIC -Wno-unused-function -D_REENTRANT
-I/sw/include -I/opt/root/current/include -Wl,-rpath,/opt/root/current/lib -o
darwin/lib/rmana.o src/mana.c
g++: -rpath: linker input file unused because linking not done
g++: /opt/root/current/lib: linker input file unused because linking not done
...
g++ -g -O2 -Wall -Iinclude -Idrivers -Ldarwin/lib -DINCLUDE_FTPLIB   -DOS_LINUX
-DOS_DARWIN -DHAVE_STRLCPY -fPIC -Wno-unused-function -DHAVE_ROOT -D_REENTRANT
-I/sw/include -I/opt/root/current/include -Wl,-rpath,/opt/root/current/lib -o
darwin/bin/mlogger src/mlogger.c darwin/lib/libmidas.a -L/opt/root/current/lib -u
_G__cpp_setupG__Hist -u _G__cpp_setupG__Graf1 -u _G__cpp_setupG__G3D -u
_G__cpp_setupG__GPad -u _G__cpp_setupG__Tree -u _G__cpp_setupG__Rint -u
_G__cpp_setupG__PostScript -u _G__cpp_setupG__Matrix -u _G__cpp_setupG__Quadp -u
_G__cpp_setupG__Physics -lCore -lCint -lHist -lGraf -lGraf3d -lGpad -lTree -lRint
-lPostscript -lMatrix -lQuadp -lPhysics -lpthread -lm -L/sw/lib -ldl -lpthread
ld: unknown flag: -rpath
gmake: *** [darwin/bin/mlogger] Error 1
---------------
What does '-rpath' mean? It is just a linking error. Thanks.

> ld: unknown flag: -rpath
> gmake: *** [darwin/bin/mlogger] Error 1

Fixed. Good catch.

> What does '-rpath' mean?

You will have to read the "ld" manual. In the nutshell, it tells the executable where to look for shared libraries. 
Aparently it is not supported by Mac OS X.

K.O.

> Is the midas CVS server set-up so that I can pull the newest 
> version off the CVS server?
> 
> What would be my CVSROOT?
> pserver:anoncvs@midas.psi.ch:/cvs/midas *this did not work* :)

I use:

setenv CVS_RSH ssh
cvs -d cvs@midas.psi.ch:/usr/local/cvsroot checkout midas

It works most of the time. Sometimes I get locking and "permission denied"
errors on some subdirectories, presumably when CVS is being reorganized or
when there are stale locks. Does not happen too often.

K.O.

Hi,
 I am really puzzled: I am running the very same as far as sources
are concerned (Dec 12, 2003 snapsot) midas frontend (miniexp + camacnul)
on two different machines (and the same trusted private network):

1) one is an ancient Pentium/100 MHz laptop with RedHat Linux 7.3 and 
2) another one is event more ancient MVME167 25MHz running VxWorks 5.4.2

The front end on my Linux PC works just fine, whereas on the MVME167
I get intermittent crashes (most often at the end of the run).
[Correction: the crashes happen, I think, when the frontend wants 
to update the ODB]

The crashes happen in db_set_record routines

Any ideas what might be wrong? 
Except that MVME167 is a piece of ...#@!% 

Piotr

A followup: I traced back the problem to version 1.9.2.

Version 1.9.1 does not have this problem but 1.9.2 does. 
For now I stick with 1.9.1

Piotr
 

Starting from midas version 1.9.4 on, the environment variable 'MIDASSYS'
should be defined and point to the installation directory of midas. The
purpose of that is that add-on packages (like the upcoming ROME system) can
find the midas libraries and include files. It is excatly the same as for
ROOT which defines ROOTSYS and should therefore be straight forward. The
libraries should then reside in $MIDASSYS/lib (or %MIDASSYS%\lib under windows).

To remind users about this new variable, a test has been added to odbedit,
which shows a warning when starting odbedit and MIDASSYS is not defined.

Version 1.9.4 of midas has been released today. It is mainly a maintenance
update, for all the little things which have been fixed since the last
release, and does not contain major new functionality.

> Starting from midas version 1.9.4 on, the environment variable 'MIDASSYS'
> should be defined and point to the installation directory of midas. The
> purpose of that is that add-on packages (like the upcoming ROME system) can
> find the midas libraries and include files. It is excatly the same as for
> ROOT which defines ROOTSYS and should therefore be straight forward. The
> libraries should then reside in $MIDASSYS/lib (or %MIDASSYS%\lib under windows).
> 
> To remind users about this new variable, a test has been added to odbedit,
> which shows a warning when starting odbedit and MIDASSYS is not defined.

1. Finally! It's about time to do that! 

2. What will the entire structure tree look like?

Here's my suggestion
MIDASSYS=/opt/midas-1.9.4 (for example)   


so the Linux binaries would go to 
MIDASHOST=i386-pc-linux-gnu
$MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin
$MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/lib

the VxWorks binaries
MIDASHOST=m68k-wrs-vxworks
$MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin
$MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/lib

and the shared stuff would go to 
$MIDASSYS/include
$MIDASSYS/share/drivers
$MIDASSYS/share/examples

The Makefile would need to be adjusted (for make install) but that is not
too complicated

What do you think?

Regards
  Piotr

> Here's my suggestion
> MIDASSYS=/opt/midas-1.9.4 (for example)   

I guess we should follow the "standard" as much as possible. MIDASSYS was inspired by
ROOTSYS. Now where do people usually install ROOT? Is it /opt/root-x.x.x or something
else. Some years ago (when I did the last time some linux administration) optional
packages were put into /usr/local by default. I guess you have more experience with
today's tradition, so do whatever you thing is standard.

> so the Linux binaries would go to 
> MIDASHOST=i386-pc-linux-gnu
> $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin
> $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/lib

Does that mean that the path has to be modified to include $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin?
If we put a link to /usr/local/bin, the path does not have to be modified. What about
shared libraries? Does ldconfig know about /usr/local/lib, or $MIDASYS/$MIDASHOST/lib?

> and the shared stuff would go to 
> $MIDASSYS/include
> $MIDASSYS/share/drivers
> $MIDASSYS/share/examples

What about /usr/share? Is that a common place for documentatino etc?

Thanks for your advice.

- Stefan

> I guess we should follow the "standard" as much as possible. MIDASSYS was inspired by
> ROOTSYS. Now where do people usually install ROOT? Is it /opt/root-x.x.x or something
> else. Some years ago (when I did the last time some linux administration) optional
> packages were put into /usr/local by default. I guess you have more experience with
> today's tradition, so do whatever you thing is standard.
I agree that we should follow the standard. 
I used /opt as an example. 
There are several "schools" as to where put things my philosophy is
/usr/{bin,lib,include}       - std OS packages (RPMS, .deb or whatever your flavor likes)
/usr/local/{bin,lib,include} - make/make install packages
/opt/..                      - additional packages (RPMS, ...) 

But it should be up to the user what $MIDASSYS she/he likes.

> 
> > so the Linux binaries would go to 
> > MIDASHOST=i386-pc-linux-gnu
> > $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin
> > $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/lib
> 
> Does that mean that the path has to be modified to include $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin?
> If we put a link to /usr/local/bin, the path does not have to be modified. What about
> shared libraries? Does ldconfig know about /usr/local/lib, or $MIDASYS/$MIDASHOST/lib?
The path could/should be modified in users .bashrc/.tcshrc or we could provide a simple
system-wide script(s) that would do the job.
For years, I've been using such a scenario on my Linux PCs with regards to various
add-on packages (e.g. cern). 

Here's an example of my cern.sh that goes into /etc/profile.d on my RedHat Linux PC
#===================================
. /etc/profile.d/.functions
export CERN=/cern
export CERN_LEVEL=pro
addpath $CERN/$CERN_LEVEL/bin
#===================================

As for library path: there are several ways (as with exec path)
a) nice way: modify /etc/ld.so.conf by adding $MIDASYS/$MIDASHOST/lib
b) modifying LD_LIBRARY_PATH (there's some security issues with it)
c) symlinking to /usr/local/lib


> 
> What about /usr/share? Is that a common place for documentatino etc?
Yes. Check any recent Linux distribution /usr/share is full of docs, icons, etc.

This is my bias. 

I (obviously) prefer packing things into rpm which makes install/updates 
very easy - especially if you are managing several machines.

Cheers
    Piotr

For a long time the "de facto" standard was to spread a package around in many
directories under /usr/local.  This proved to be a bad idea, as removing the
package
became very difficult.

With POSIX there is a written standard, which says that each pacakge goes in
it's own
directory under /opt. eg. /opt/midas.  Each package gets to define it's own
structure
within that directory.  One could imagine several versions installed at the
same time
/opt/midas/v1.9.2 and /opt/midas/v1.9.4 each with a bin, lib include etc. 
Following the
ROOT example, you could make a link from /opt/midas/pro to
/opt/midas/v1.9.4, so that
system files and login files are easy to maintain etc.  The basic idea is

MIDASSYS=/opt/midas/pro
PATH=$PATH:$MIDASSYS/bin

though a more sophisticated approach is

MIDASSYS=/opt/midas/pro
echo $PATH | grep -q $MIDASSYS || PATH=$PATH:$MIDASSYS/bin

where the assignment line (Bourne shell, and BASH shell) ensures
that multiple entries are not added on the PATH even if the script is more
than once.

POSIX also goes on to say that links from /opt/bin can be made if desired. 
I find this
usefull if a package has only one or two executables, and I don't to make
multiple
versions available.

I hope that the POSIX ideas are usefull,

John.

> > Here's my suggestion
> > MIDASSYS=/opt/midas-1.9.4 (for example)   
> 
> I guess we should follow the "standard" as much as possible. MIDASSYS was
inspired by
> ROOTSYS. Now where do people usually install ROOT? Is it /opt/root-x.x.x
or something
> else. Some years ago (when I did the last time some linux administration)
optional
> packages were put into /usr/local by default. I guess you have more
experience with
> today's tradition, so do whatever you thing is standard.
> 
> > so the Linux binaries would go to 
> > MIDASHOST=i386-pc-linux-gnu
> > $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin
> > $MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/lib
> 
> Does that mean that the path has to be modified to include
$MIDASSYS/$MIDASHOST/bin?
> If we put a link to /usr/local/bin, the path does not have to be modified.
What about
> shared libraries? Does ldconfig know about /usr/local/lib, or
$MIDASYS/$MIDASHOST/lib?
> 
> > and the shared stuff would go to 
> > $MIDASSYS/include
> > $MIDASSYS/share/drivers
> > $MIDASSYS/share/examples
> 
> What about /usr/share? Is that a common place for documentatino etc?
> 
> Thanks for your advice.
> 
> - Stefan

> With POSIX there is a written standard, which says that each pacakge goes in
> it's own
> directory under /opt. eg. /opt/midas.  Each package gets to define it's own
> structure
> within that directory.  One could imagine several versions installed at the
> same time
> /opt/midas/v1.9.2 and /opt/midas/v1.9.4 each with a bin, lib include etc. 
> Following the
> ROOT example, you could make a link from /opt/midas/pro to
> /opt/midas/v1.9.4, so that
> system files and login files are easy to maintain etc.  The basic idea is
> 
> MIDASSYS=/opt/midas/pro
> PATH=$PATH:$MIDASSYS/bin
> 
> though a more sophisticated approach is
> 
> MIDASSYS=/opt/midas/pro
> echo $PATH | grep -q $MIDASSYS || PATH=$PATH:$MIDASSYS/bin
> 
> where the assignment line (Bourne shell, and BASH shell) ensures
> that multiple entries are not added on the PATH even if the script is more
> than once.

That sounds all very good to me. So can you please sit together (at least John,
Piotr, and Pierre-Andre), discuss a common scheme and and propose it officially in
this forum for comments. After a week or so, it should be implemented into the
Makefile and installation scripts. I also would like to have Paul Knowles giving
it a look, since he voluteered to make the midas RPMs, which also heavily depends
on the chosen directory structure.

I have compiled the sources on Darwin 7.4.0 with gcc 3.3. After the compilation of source codes, I 
try to execute "gmake install". I got the following message:
-------
Nothing to be done for "install".
-------

The install target could not be executed. Then I add the following line to the Makefile:
------
.PHONY: install
------

The install target can be executed. But when it is tring to copy "dio" to the proper directory, it 
cannot find the file. Then I found that the "utils" target isn't built. 
I try to build the target: darwin/bin/dio, I got the following error:
-------
cc -g -O2 -Wall -Iinclude -Idrivers -Ldarwin/lib -DINCLUDE_FTPLIB   -DOS_LINUX -DOS_DARWIN 
-DHAVE_STRLCPY -fPIC -Wno-unused-function -o darwin/bin/dio utils/dio.c
utils/dio.c:39:20: sys/io.h: No such file or directory
utils/dio.c: In function `main':
utils/dio.c:46: warning: implicit declaration of function `iopl'
gmake: *** [darwin/bin/dio] Error 1
--------
So, the include file "sys/io.h" may be changed under Darwin. I don't know how. I will try later. I 
hope somebody can notice this. 
Best regards.

There are not such a file "io.h" inside my MacOS X. In fact, I didn't find any file containing function iopl().
So what is the equivalent function of iopl() under MacOS X? The utility dio should be modified in order to be compiled under Darwin-
gcc platform. 

> There are not such a file "io.h" inside my MacOS X. In fact, I didn't find any file containing function iopl().
> So what is the equivalent function of iopl() under MacOS X? The utility dio should be modified in order to be compiled under Darwin-
> gcc platform. 

"dio" is not supported under MacOSX. It is used to grant user programs access to PCI and ISA cards (usually CAMAC interfaces). We have
no MacOSX hardware with PCI or ISA slots so we cannot test and support this functionality.

The MacOSX Makefile should not try to build "dio". I will accept a patch to fix this Makefile bug.

K.O.

Hi,
  I think that rather than spending too much time on where to 
put files and how to define the environment - I am guilty of that myself.
We should be perhaps have some discussion on the future of MIDAS.

Are we ready for 2.0? 
Stefan - do you have any ideas/enhancements?

1) For one I would like to explore memory mapping (mmap()) on Linux
- I've used it once upon a time on DEC OSF/1 and I found it really
nice compared to shared memory. 
From a user standpoint it behaves as a shared memory but is mapped 
to a real file that can be easily "removed" when neccessary. 
One really annoying thing in MIDAS is when it goes ballistic
the cleanup which is somewhat tricky. 
The question if there is any performance penalty associated

2) Expanding hardware support: 
   a) custom microcontrolers?
   b) more hardware
   c) how about a "standard" Linux device /dev/midas
   for various PCI cards (PCI<->CAMAC) (PCI<->VME) 

3) I have never really seen a midas deployment that uses interrupts. 
I do understand the ease of polling and the fact that these days
CPU's are cheap but sometimes it is important to use interrupts.
Any examples/experience?

?)

Piotr

Sorry the previous message got mangled:

Hi, 
I think that rather than spending too much time on where to put files 
and how to define the environment - I am guilty of that myself -  we should 
perhaps have some discussion on the future of MIDAS. 

Are we ready for 2.0? 

Stefan - do you have any ideas/enhancements? 

1) For one I would like to explore memory mapping (mmap()) on Linux.
I've used it once upon a time on DEC OSF/1 and I found it really nice 
compared to shared memory. From a user standpoint it behaves as a shared
memory but is mapped to a real file that can be easily "removed" when 
neccessary. One really annoying thing in MIDAS is when it goes ballistic 
the cleanup is somewhat tricky. 
The question if there is any performance penalty associated 

2) Expanding hardware support: 
  a) custom microcontrolers? 
  b) other hardware
  c) how about a "standard" Linux device /dev/midas for various 
  PCI cards (PCI<->CAMAC) (PCI<->VME) 

3) I have never really seen a midas deployment that uses interrupts. 
I do understand the ease of polling and the fact that these days CPU's 
are cheap but sometimes it is important to use interrupts. 

Any examples/experience? 

?) 

Piotr

Have changed your entry as Non-HTML (easier to reply to...)

Here are some "initial" comments, by no means complete...

> Are we ready for 2.0? 
> Stefan - do you have any ideas/enhancements?

A big thing along the horizon I see is the ROME environment
(http://midas.psi.ch/rome/). So we will move away from PAW to ROOT. Although
the DAQ part will stay untouched, the whole analysis back-end changes,
including some XML configuration and MySQL support. I guess that would justify
a 2.0. I will discuss this at TRIUMF when I come in September, see how useful
ROME is for other users...

> 1) For one I would like to explore memory mapping (mmap()) on Linux
> - I've used it once upon a time on DEC OSF/1 and I found it really
> nice compared to shared memory. 
> From a user standpoint it behaves as a shared memory but is mapped 
> to a real file that can be easily "removed" when neccessary. 
> One really annoying thing in MIDAS is when it goes ballistic
> the cleanup which is somewhat tricky. 
> The question if there is any performance penalty associated

I guess there are no performance penalties, since under the hood both
techniques are handled similarly. The problem is that besides share memories
you need also semaphores to controll exclusive access to the memory, either
shm() funcitons or mmap(), so this would only fix half of the problem. I seem
to remember that mmap() was not available on some Ultix systems or so, but I
guess that's obsolete by now...

> 2) Expanding hardware support: 
>    a) custom microcontrolers?
>    b) more hardware
>    c) how about a "standard" Linux device /dev/midas
>    for various PCI cards (PCI<->CAMAC) (PCI<->VME) 

Well, you cannot develop hardware support for hardware you don't have, so the
policy up to now was that everyone developing some special drivers or hardware
support contributed it to the package. About c), we have already a CAMAC
driver standard, but at the user space level, so I don't see the benefit of
having kernel-mode standardized drivers. The only difference will be that the
debugging will be harder. VME standard is there in a kind of poor start right
now, but I expect to finish it this fall.

As for a), there is the MSCB system (http://midas.psi.ch/mscb) which has midas
support on the device driver and bus driver level, but I learned that
distributing hardware (or PCB designs if you like) is much harder than sharing
software. 

> 3) I have never really seen a midas deployment that uses interrupts. 
> I do understand the ease of polling and the fact that these days
> CPU's are cheap but sometimes it is important to use interrupts.
> Any examples/experience?

It's not only the "ease" of polling, but also that it's faster (in almost all
cases) and less troublesome. But hey, interrupt support is included in mfe.c,
so if you are fanatic about interrupts, please feel free to use them.

Hello midas'ers,

Today I discovered a severe bug in the routine bm_check_buffers(), which
causes the logger to crash when it stops a run due to a reached event limit.
The funny thing is that this bug was there since the beginning, but only
recent versions of gcc and libc reveal it.

Since I consider this severe, I fixed it and updated 1.9.4 just now. I did
not go with 1.9.4-1, but maybe in future we should consider patch levels.

So please everybody who uses 1.9.4 and has problems with crashing loggers,
please update to 1.9.4 from today (July 15th, 2004).

- Stefan

> > Are we ready for 2.0? 

I disapprove of version number inflation. Why not go straight for midas version
3000-Pro-Z?

> A big thing along the horizon I see is the ROME environment
> (http://midas.psi.ch/rome/). So we will move away from PAW to ROOT. Although
> the DAQ part will stay untouched, the whole analysis back-end changes,
> including some XML configuration and MySQL support.

I looked at the ROME slides from Pierre, and it seems to suffer badly from the
second-system syndrome (read The Mythical Man-Month).

For us, it is important to get the data into a form where we can process it with
ROOT and I would prefer if we could concentrate in improving the (embryonic) ROOT
online analysis capabilities.

> > 1) For one I would like to explore memory mapping (mmap())

It is trivial to replace System-V shared memory with mmap(). I am surprised that
it has not been done yet. System-V semaphores are a little bit harder to get rid of.

> > 2) Expanding hardware support: 
> >    a) custom microcontrolers?
> >    b) more hardware
> >    c) how about a "standard" Linux device /dev/midas
> >    for various PCI cards (PCI<->CAMAC) (PCI<->VME) 

We cannot expect MIDAS Authors to provide drivers for all possible hardware.

At best, we can mount an effort to collect exisiting drivers from all MIDAS users
"out there" and to integrate them into MIDAS.

Even that is highly non-trivial- many drivers use non-portable native hardware
access interfaces (direct bit-banging on PPCs, VMIC library on VMIC Linux
machines, etc). We have already failed to create an efficient generic portable VME
access library.

> As for a), there is the MSCB system (http://midas.psi.ch/mscb)

I never saw the point of having tons of MIDAS code for MSCB hardware that nobody
has and nobody will ever have.

> > 3) I have never really seen a midas deployment that uses interrupts. 
>
> It's not only the "ease" of polling, but also that it's faster (in almost all
> cases) and less troublesome. But hey, interrupt support is included in mfe.c,
> so if you are fanatic about interrupts...

Interrupts are important when one cannot afford chewing up CPU cycles, memory
cycles, PCI cycles and VME cycles on polling.

As I understand, common CAMAC hardware does not generate interrupts- this explains
lack of examples and lack of interrupt use. At TRIUMF, our new VME hardware
supports interrupts and I have a VMIC-based setup where I can (and intend to) test
MIDAS support of interrupts.

K.O.