Back Midas Rome Roody Rootana
  Midas DAQ System, Page 37 of 121  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Topic Subject
  802   15 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiBug Reportbk_delete uses memcpy instead of memmove
> In midas.c, the bk_delete function removes a bank by decrementing the total
> event size and then copying the remaining banks into the location of the first
> using memcpy from string.h.

Replaced some memcpy() with memmove(), including bk_delete().

svn rev 5293
K.O.
  803   15 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiBug Report_net_send_buffer realloc
> 2) cm_disconect_experiment() calls free(_net_send_buffer) but does not set its 
> value to NULL.

Set pointer to NULL after free() in these files:

M       odb.c
M       sequencer.cxx
M       mlogger.cxx
M       mhttpd.cxx
M       midas.c

svn rev 5294
K.O.
  804   20 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfolazylogger write to HADOOP HDFS
I tried using the lazylogger "Disk" method to write into a HADOOP HDFS clustered filesystem and found a 
number of problems. I ended up replacing the lazylogger lazy_copy() function that still uses former YBOS 
code with a new lazy_disk_copy() function that uses generic fread/fwrite. Also fixed the situation where 
lazylogger cannot cleanly stop from the mhttpd "programs/stop" button while it is busy writing (the fix 
works only for the "Disk" method).

(Note that one can also use the "Script" method for writing into HDFS)

Anyhow, the new lazylogger writes into HDFS just fine and I expect that it would also work for writing into 
DCACHE using PNFS (if ever we get the SL6 PNFS working with our DCACHE servers).

Writing into our test HDFS cluster runs at about 20 MiBytes/sec for 1GB files with replication set to 3.

svn rev 5295
K.O.
  805   20 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
I am recording here the results from a test VME system using two VF48 waveform digitizers and a 64-bit 
dual-core VME processor (V7865). VF48 data suppression is off, VF48 modules set to read 48 channels, 
1000 ADC samples each. mlogger data compression is enabled (gzip -1).

Event rate is about 200/sec
VME Data rate is about 40 Mbytes/sec
System is 100% busy (estimate)

System utilization of host computer (dual-core 2.2GHz, dual-channel DDR333 RAM):

(note high CPU use by mlogger for gzip compression of midas files)

top - 12:23:45 up 68 days, 20:28,  3 users,  load average: 1.39, 1.22, 1.04
Tasks: 193 total,   3 running, 190 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 32.1%us,  6.2%sy,  0.0%ni, 54.4%id,  2.7%wa,  0.1%hi,  4.5%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   3925556k total,  3797440k used,   128116k free,     1780k buffers
Swap: 32766900k total,        8k used, 32766892k free,  2970224k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND                                   
 5169 trinat    20   0  246m 108m  97m R 64.3  2.8  29:36.86 mlogger                                    
 5771 trinat    20   0  119m  98m  97m R 14.9  2.6 139:34.03 mserver                                    
 6083 root      20   0     0    0    0 S  2.0  0.0   0:35.85 flush-9:3                                  
 1097 root      20   0     0    0    0 S  0.9  0.0  86:06.38 md3_raid1        

System utilization of VME processor (dual-core 2.16 GHz, single-channel DDR2 RAM):

(note the more than 100% CPU use of multithreaded fevme)

top - 12:24:49 up 70 days, 19:14,  2 users,  load average: 1.19, 1.05, 1.01
Tasks: 103 total,   1 running, 101 sleeping,   1 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s):  6.3%us, 45.1%sy,  0.0%ni, 47.7%id,  0.0%wa,  0.2%hi,  0.6%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   1019436k total,   866672k used,   152764k free,     3576k buffers
Swap:        0k total,        0k used,        0k free,    20976k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND                                   
19740 trinat    20   0  177m 108m  984 S 104.5 10.9   1229:00 fevme_gef.exe                             
 1172 ganglia   20   0  416m  99m 1652 S  0.7 10.0   1101:59 gmond                                      
32353 olchansk  20   0 19240 1416 1096 R  0.2  0.1   0:00.05 top                                        
  146 root      15  -5     0    0    0 S  0.1  0.0  42:52.98 kslowd001       

Attached are the CPU and network ganglia plots from lxdaq09 (VME) and ladd02 (host).

The regular bursts of "network out" on ladd02 is lazylogger writing mid.gz files to HADOOP HDFS.

K.O.
  806   20 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
> I am recording here the results from a test VME system using two VF48 waveform digitizers

Note 1: data compression is about 89% (hence "data to disk" rate is much smaller than the "data from VME" rate)

Note 2: switch from VME MBLT64 block transfer to 2eVME block transfer:
- raises the VME data rate from 40 to 48 M/s
- event rate from 220/sec to 260/sec
- mlogger CPU use from 64% to about 80%

This is consistent with the measured VME block transfer rates for the VF48 module: MBLT64 is about 40 M/s, 2eVME is about 50 M/s (could be 
80 M/s if no clock cycles were lost to sync VME signals with the VF48 clocks), 2eSST is implemented but impossible - VF48 cannot drive the 
VME BERR and RETRY signals. Evil standards, grumble, grumble, grumble).

K.O.
  809   21 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
> Just for completeness: Attached is the VME transfer speed I get with the SIS3100/SIS1100 interface using 
> 2eVME transfer. This curve can be explained exactly with an overhead of 125 us per DMA transfer and a 
> continuous link speed of 83 MB/sec.

What VME module is on the other end?

K.O.
  812   24 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
> > > Just for completeness: Attached is the VME transfer speed I get with the SIS3100/SIS1100 interface using 
> > > 2eVME transfer. This curve can be explained exactly with an overhead of 125 us per DMA transfer and a 
> > > continuous link speed of 83 MB/sec.
>
> [with ...]  the PSI-built DRS4 board, where we implemented the 2eVME protocol in the Virtex II FPGA.

This is an interesting hardware benchmark. Do you also have benchmarks of the MIDAS system using the DRS4 (measurements
of end-to-end data rates, maximum event rate, maximum trigger rate, any tuning of the frontend program
and of the MIDAS experiment to achieve those rates, etc)?

K.O.
  813   24 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
> > I am recording here the results from a test VME system using two VF48 waveform digitizers

(I now have 4 VF48 waveform digitizers, so the event rates are half of those reported before. Date rate
is up to 51 M/s - event size has doubled, per-event overhead is the same, so the effective data rate goes 
up).

This message demonstrates the effects of tuning the MIDAS system for high rate data taking.

Attached is the history plot of the event rate counters which show the real-time performance of the MIDAS 
system with better detail compared to the average event rate reported on the MIDAS status page. For an 
ideal real-time system, the event rate should be a constant, without any drop-outs.

Seen on the plot:

run 75: the periodic dropouts in the event rate correspond to the lazylogger writing data into HADOOP 
HDFS. Clearly the host computer cannot keep up with both data taking and data archiving at the same 
time. (see the output of "top" "with HDFS" and "without HDFS" below)

run 76: SYSTEM buffer size increased from 100Mbytes to 300Mbytes. Maybe there is an improvement.

run 77-78: "event_buffer_size" inside the multithreaded (EQ_MULTITHREAD) VME frontend increased from 
100Mbytes to 300Mbytes. (6 seconds of data at 50M/s). Much better, yes?

Conclusion: for improved real-time performance, there should be sufficient buffering between the VME 
frontend readout thread and the mlogger data compression thread.

For benchmark hardware, at 50M/s, 4 seconds of buffer space (100M in the SYSTEM buffer and 100M in 
the frontend) is not enough. 12 seconds of buffer space (300+300) is much better. (Or buy a faster 
backend computer).


P.S. HDFS data rate as measured by lazylogger is around 20M/s for CDH3 HADOOP and around 30M/s for 
CDH4 HADOOP.

P.S. Observe the ever present unexplained event rate fluctuations between 130-140 event/sec.


K.O.


---- "top" output during normal data taking, notice mlogger data compression consumes 99% CPU at 51 
M/s data rate.

top - 08:55:22 up 72 days, 17:00,  5 users,  load average: 2.47, 2.32, 2.27
Tasks: 206 total,   2 running, 204 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 52.2%us,  6.1%sy,  0.0%ni, 34.4%id,  0.8%wa,  0.1%hi,  6.2%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   3925556k total,  3064928k used,   860628k free,     3788k buffers
Swap: 32766900k total,   200704k used, 32566196k free,  2061048k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND                                                
 5826 trinat    20   0  437m 291m 287m R 97.6  7.6 636:39.63 mlogger                                                 
27617 trinat    20   0  310m 288m 288m S 24.6  7.5   6:59.28 mserver                                                 
 1806 ganglia   20   0  415m  62m 1488 S  0.9  1.6 668:43.55 gmond       


--- "top" output during lazylogger/HDFS activity. Observe high CPU use by lazylogger and fuse_dfs (the 
HADOOP HDFS client). Observe that CPU use adds up to 167% out of 200% available.

top - 08:57:16 up 72 days, 17:01,  5 users,  load average: 2.65, 2.35, 2.29
Tasks: 206 total,   2 running, 204 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 57.6%us, 23.1%sy,  0.0%ni,  8.1%id,  0.0%wa,  0.4%hi, 10.7%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   3925556k total,  3642136k used,   283420k free,     4316k buffers
Swap: 32766900k total,   200692k used, 32566208k free,  2597752k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND                                                
 5826 trinat    20   0  437m 291m 287m R 68.7  7.6 638:24.07 mlogger                                                 
23450 root      20   0 1849m 200m 4472 S 64.4  5.2  75:35.64 fuse_dfs                                                
27617 trinat    20   0  310m 288m 288m S 18.5  7.5   7:22.06 mserver                                                 
26723 trinat    20   0 38720  11m 1172 S 17.9  0.3  22:37.38 lazylogger                                              
 7268 trinat    20   0 1007m  35m 4004 D  1.3  0.9 187:14.52 nautilus                                                
 1097 root      20   0     0    0    0 S  0.8  0.0 101:45.55 md3_raid1   
  815   25 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
> > P.S. Observe the ever present unexplained event rate fluctuations between 130-140 event/sec.
> 
> An important aspect of optimizing your system is to keep the network traffic under control. I use GBit Ethernet between FE and BE, and make sure the switch 
> can accomodate all accumulated network traffic through its backplane. This way I do not have any TCP retransmits which kill you. Like if a single low-level 
> ethernet packet is lost due to collision, the TCP stack retransmits it. Depending on the local settings, this can be after a timeout of one (!) second, which 
> punches already a hole in your data rate. On the MSCB system actually I use UDP packets, where I schedule the retransmit myself. For a LAN, 10-100ms timeout 
> is there enough. The one second is optimized for a WAN (like between two continents) where this is fine, but it is not what you want on a LAN system. Also 
> make sure that the outgoing traffic (lazylogger) uses a different network card than the incoming traffic. I found that this also helps a lot.
> 

In typical applications at TRIUMF we do not setup a private network for the data traffic - data from VME to backend computer
and data from backend computer to DCACHE all go through the TRIUMF network.

This is justified by the required data rates - the highest data rate experiment running right now is PIENU - running
at about 10 M/s sustained, nominally April through December. (This is 20% of the data rate of the present benchmark).

The next highest data rate experiment is T2K/ND280 in Japan running at about 20 M/s (neutrino beam, data rate
is dominated by calibration events).

All other experiments at TRIUMF run at lower data rates (low intensity light ion beams), but we are planning for an experiment
that will run at 300 M/s sustained over 1 week of scheduled beam time.

But we do have the technical capability to separate data traffic from the TRIUMF network - the VME processors and
the backend computers all have dual GigE NICs.

(I did not say so, but obviously the present benchmark at 50 M/s VME to backend and 20-30 M/s from backend to HDFS is a GigE network).

(I am not monitoring the TCP loss and retransmit rates at present time)

(The network switch between VME and backend is a "the cheapest available" rackmountable 8-port GigE switch. The network between
the backend and the HDFS nodes is mostly Nortel 48-port GigE edge switches with single-GigE uplinks to the core router).

K.O.
  816   26 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
> > > I am recording here the results from a test VME system using four VF48 waveform digitizers

Now we look at the detail of the event readout, or if you want, the real-time properties of the MIDAS 
multithreaded VME frontend program.

The benchmark system includes a TRIUMF-made VME-NIMIO32 VME trigger module which records the 
time of the trigger and provides a 20 MHz timestamp register. The frontend program is instrumented to 
save the trigger time and readout timing data into a special "trigger" bank ("VTR0"). The ROOTANA-based 
MIDAS analyzer is used to analyze this data and to make these plots.

Timing data is recorded like this:

NIM trigger signal ---> latched into the IO32 trigger time register (VTR0 "trigger time")
...
int read_event(pevent, etc) {
VTR0 "trigger time" = io32->latched_trigger_time();
VTR0 "readout start time" = io32->timestamp();
read the VF48 data
io32->release_busy();
VTR0 "readout end time" = io32->timestamp();
}

From the VTR0 time data, we compute these values:

1) "trigger latency" = "readout start time" - "trigger time" --- the time it takes us to "see" the trigger
2) "readout time" = "readout end time" - "readout start time" --- the time it takes to read the VF48 data
3) "busy time" = "readout end time" - "trigger time" --- time during which the "DAQ busy" trigger veto is 
active.
also computed is
4) "time between events" = "trigger time" - "time of previous trigger"

And plot them on the attached graphs:

1) "trigger latency" - we see average trigger latency is 5 usec with hardly any events taking more than 10 
usec (notice the log Y scale!). Also notice that there are 35 events that took longer that 100 usec (0.7% out 
of 5000 events).

So how "real time" is this? For "hard real time" the trigger latency should never exceed some maximum, 
which is determined by formal analysis or experimentally (in which case it will carry an experimental error 
bar - "response time is always less than X usec with probability 99.9...%" - the better system will have 
smaller X and more nines). Since I did not record the maximum latency, I can only claim that the 
"response time is always less than 1 sec, I am pretty sure of it".

For "soft real time" systems, such as subatomic particle physics DAQ systems, one is permitted to exceed 
that maximum response time, but "not too often". Such systems are characterized by the quantities 
derived from the present plot (mean response time, frequency of exceeding some deadlines, etc). The 
quality of a soft real time system is usually judged by non-DAQ criteria (i.e. if the DAQ for the T2K/ND280 
experiment does not respond within 20 msec, a neutrino beam spill an be lost and the experiment is 
required to report the number of lost spills to the weekly facility management meeting).

Can the trigger latency be improved by using interrupts instead of polling? Remember that on most 
hardware, the VME and PCI bus access time is around 1 usec and trigger latency of 5-10 usec corresponds 
to roughly 5-10 reads of a PCI or VME register. So there is not much room for speed up. Consider that an 
interrupt handler has to perform at least 2-3 PCI register reads (to determine the source of the interrupt 
and to clear the interrupt condition), it has to wake up the right process and do a rather slow CPU context 
switch, maybe do a cross-CPU interrupt (if VME interrupts are routed to the wrong CPU core). All this 
takes time. Then the Linux kernel interrupt latency comes into play. All this is overhead absent in pure-
polling implementations. (Yes, burning a CPU core to poll for data is wasteful, but is there any other use 
for this CPU core? With a dual-core CPU, the 1st core polls for data, the 2nd core runs mfe.c, the TCP/IP 
stack and the ethernet transmitter.)

2) "readout time" - between 7 and 8 msec, corresponding to the 50 Mbytes/sec VME block transfer rate. 
No events taking more than 10 msec. (Could claim hard real time performance here).

3) "busy time" - for the simple benchmark system it is a boring sum of plots (1) and (2). The mean busy 
time ("dead time") goes straight into the formula for computing cross-sections (if that is what you do).

4) "time between events" - provides an independent measurement of dead time - one can see that no 
event takes less than 7 msec to process and 27 events took longer than 10 msec (0.65% out of 4154 
events). If the trigger were cosmic rays instead of a pulser, this plot would also measure the cosmic ray 
event rate - one would see the exponential shape of the Poisson distribution (linear on Log scale, with the 
slope being the cosmic event rate).


K.O.
  817   26 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfomidas vme benchmarks
> > > > I am recording here the results from a test VME system using four VF48 
waveform digitizers

Last message from this series. After all the tuning, I reduce the trigger rate 
from 120 Hz to 100 Hz to see
what happens when the backend computer is not overloaded and has some spare 
capacity.

event rate: 100 Hz (down from 120 Hz)
data rate: 37 Mbytes/sec (down from 50 M/s)
mlogger cpu use: 65% (down from 99%)

Attached:

1) trigger rate event plot: now the rate is solid 100 Hz without dropouts
2) CPU and Network plots frog ganglia: the spikes is lazylogger saving mid.gz 
files to HDFS storage
3) time structure plots:
a) trigger latency: mean 5 us, most below 10 us, 59 events (0.046%) longer than 
100 us, (bottom left graph) 7000 us is longest latency observed.
b) readout time is 7000-8000 us (same as before - VME data rate is independant 
from the trigger rate)
c) busy time: mean 7.2 us, 12 events (0.0094%) longer than 10 ms, longest busy 
time ever observed is 17 ms (bottom middle graph)
d) time between events is 10 ms (100 Hz pulser trigger), 1 event was missed 
about 10 times (spike at 20 ms) (0.0085%), more than 1 event missed never (no 
spike at 30 ms, 40 ms, etc).


CPU use on the backend computer:

top - 16:30:59 up 75 days, 35 min,  6 users,  load average: 0.98, 0.99, 1.01
Tasks: 206 total,   3 running, 203 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 39.3%us,  8.2%sy,  0.0%ni, 39.4%id,  5.7%wa,  0.3%hi,  7.2%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   3925556k total,  3404192k used,   521364k free,     8792k buffers
Swap: 32766900k total,   296304k used, 32470596k free,  2477268k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND            
 5826 trinat    20   0  441m 292m 287m R 65.8  7.6   2215:16 mlogger            
26756 trinat    20   0  310m 288m 288m S 16.8  7.5  34:32.03 mserver            
29005 olchansk  20   0  206m  39m  17m R 14.7  1.0  26:19.42 ana_vf48.exe       
 7878 olchansk  20   0   99m 3988  740 S  7.7  0.1  27:06.34 sshd               
29012 trinat    20   0  314m 288m 288m S  2.8  7.5   4:22.14 mserver            
23317 root      20   0     0    0    0 S  1.4  0.0  24:21.52 flush-9:3     


K.O.
  818   29 Jun 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiInfolazylogger write to HADOOP HDFS
> Anyhow, the new lazylogger writes into HDFS just fine and I expect that it would also work for writing into 
> DCACHE using PNFS (if ever we get the SL6 PNFS working with our DCACHE servers).
> 
> Writing into our test HDFS cluster runs at about 20 MiBytes/sec for 1GB files with replication set to 3.

Minor update to lazylogger and mlogger:

lazylogger default timeout 60 sec is too short for writing into HDFS - changed to 10 min.
mlogger checks for free space were insufficient and it would fill the output disk to 100% full before stopping 
the run. Now for disks bigger than 100GB, it will stop the run if there is less than 1GB of free space. (100% 
disk full would break the history and the elog if they happen to be on the same disk).

Also I note that mlogger.cxx rev 5297 includes a fix for a performance bug introduced about 6 month ago (mlogger 
would query free disk space after writing each event - depending on your filesystem configuration and the event 
rate, this bug was observed to extremely severely reduce the midas disk writing performance).

svn rev 5296, 5297
K.O.

P.S. I use these lazylogger settings for writing to HDFS. Write speed varies around 10-20-30 Mbytes/sec (4-node 
cluster, 3 replicas of each file).

[local:trinat_detfac:S]Settings>pwd
/Lazy/HDFS/Settings
[local:trinat_detfac:S]Settings>ls -l
Key name                        Type    #Val  Size  Last Opn Mode Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period                          INT     1     4     7m   0   RWD  10
Maintain free space (%)         INT     1     4     7m   0   RWD  20
Stay behind                     INT     1     4     7m   0   RWD  0
Alarm Class                     STRING  1     32    7m   0   RWD  
Running condition               STRING  1     128   7m   0   RWD  ALWAYS
Data dir                        STRING  1     256   7m   0   RWD  /home/trinat/online/data
Data format                     STRING  1     8     7m   0   RWD  MIDAS
Filename format                 STRING  1     128   7m   0   RWD  run*
Backup type                     STRING  1     8     7m   0   RWD  Disk
Execute after rewind            STRING  1     64    7m   0   RWD  
Path                            STRING  1     128   7m   0   RWD  /hdfs/users/trinat/data
Capacity (Bytes)                FLOAT   1     4     7m   0   RWD  5e+09
List label                      STRING  1     128   7m   0   RWD  HDFS
Execute before writing file     STRING  1     64    7m   0   RWD  
Execute after writing file      STRING  1     64    7m   0   RWD  
Modulo.Position                 STRING  1     8     7m   0   RWD  
Tape Data Append                BOOL    1     4     7m   0   RWD  y

K.O.
  819   04 Jul 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiBug ReportCrash after recursive use of rpc_execute()
I am looking at a MIDAS kaboom when running out of space on the data disk - everything was freezing 
up, even the VME frontend crashed sometimes.

The freeze was traced to ROOT use in mlogger - it turns out that ROOT intercepts many signal handlers, 
including SIGSEGV - but instead of crashing the program as God intended, ROOT SEGV handler just hangs, 
and the rest of MIDAS hangs with it. One solution is to always build mlogger without ROOT support - 
does anybody use this feature anymore? Or reset the signal handlers back to the default setting somehow.

Freeze fixed, now I see a crash (seg fault) inside mlogger, in the newly introduced memmove() function 
inside the MIDAS RPC code rpc_execute(). memmove() replaced memcpy() in the same place and I am 
surprised we did not see this crash with memcpy().

The crash is caused by crazy arguments passed to memmove() - looks like corrupted RPC arguments 
data.

Then I realized that I see a recursive call to rpc_execute(): rpc_execute() calls tr_stop() calls cm_yield() calls 
ss_suspend() calls rpc_execute(). The second rpc_execute successfully completes, but leave corrupted 
data for the original rpc_execute(), which happily crashes. At the moment of the crash, recursive call to 
rpc_execute() is no longer visible.

Note that rpc_execute() cannot be called recursively - it is not re-entrant as it uses a global buffer for RPC 
argument processing. (global tls_buffer structure).

Here is the mlogger stack trace:

#0  0x00000032a8032885 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x00000032a8034065 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2  0x00000032a802b9fe in __assert_fail_base () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#3  0x00000032a802bac0 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#4  0x000000000041d3e6 in rpc_execute (sock=14, buffer=0x7ffff73fc010 "\340.", convert_flags=0) at 
src/midas.c:11478
#5  0x0000000000429e41 in rpc_server_receive (idx=1, sock=<value optimized out>, check=<value 
optimized out>) at src/midas.c:12955
#6  0x0000000000433fcd in ss_suspend (millisec=0, msg=0) at src/system.c:3927
#7  0x0000000000429b12 in cm_yield (millisec=100) at src/midas.c:4268
#8  0x00000000004137c0 in close_channels (run_number=118, p_tape_flag=0x7fffffffcd34) at 
src/mlogger.cxx:3705
#9  0x000000000041390e in tr_stop (run_number=118, error=<value optimized out>) at 
src/mlogger.cxx:4148
#10 0x000000000041cd42 in rpc_execute (sock=12, buffer=0x7ffff73fc010 "\340.", convert_flags=0) at 
src/midas.c:11626
#11 0x0000000000429e41 in rpc_server_receive (idx=0, sock=<value optimized out>, check=<value 
optimized out>) at src/midas.c:12955
#12 0x0000000000433fcd in ss_suspend (millisec=0, msg=0) at src/system.c:3927
#13 0x0000000000429b12 in cm_yield (millisec=1000) at src/midas.c:4268
#14 0x0000000000416c50 in main (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=<value optimized out>) at 
src/mlogger.cxx:4431


K.O.
  820   04 Jul 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiBug ReportCrash after recursive use of rpc_execute()
>  ... I see a recursive call to rpc_execute(): rpc_execute() calls tr_stop() calls cm_yield() calls 
> ss_suspend() calls rpc_execute()
> ... rpc_execute() cannot be called recursively - it is not re-entrant as it uses a global buffer

It turns out that rpc_server_receive() also need protection against recursive calls - it also uses
a global buffer to receive network data.

My solution is to protect rpc_server_receive() against recursive calls by detecting recursion and returning SS_SUCCESS (to ss_suspend()).

I was worried that this would cause a tight loop inside ss_suspend() but in practice, it looks like ss_suspend() tries to call
us about once per second. I am happy with this solution. Here is the diff:


@@ -12813,7 +12815,7 @@
 
 
 /********************************************************************/
-INT rpc_server_receive(INT idx, int sock, BOOL check)
+INT rpc_server_receive1(INT idx, int sock, BOOL check)
 /********************************************************************\
 
   Routine: rpc_server_receive
@@ -13047,7 +13049,28 @@
    return status;
 }
 
+/********************************************************************/
+INT rpc_server_receive(INT idx, int sock, BOOL check)
+{
+  static int level = 0;
+  int status;
 
+  // Provide protection against recursive calls to rpc_server_receive() and rpc_execute()
+  // via rpc_execute() calls tr_stop() calls cm_yield() calls ss_suspend() calls rpc_execute()
+
+  if (level != 0) {
+    //printf("*** enter rpc_server_receive level %d, idx %d sock %d %d -- protection against recursive use!\n", level, idx, sock, check);
+    return SS_SUCCESS;
+  }
+
+  level++;
+  //printf(">>> enter rpc_server_receive level %d, idx %d sock %d %d\n", level, idx, sock, check);
+  status = rpc_server_receive1(idx, sock, check);
+  //printf("<<< exit rpc_server_receive level %d, idx %d sock %d %d, status %d\n", level, idx, sock, check, status);
+  level--;
+  return status;
+}
+
 /********************************************************************/
 INT rpc_server_shutdown(void)
 /********************************************************************\


ladd02:trinat~/packages/midas>svn info src/midas.c
Path: src/midas.c
Name: midas.c
URL: svn+ssh://svn@savannah.psi.ch/repos/meg/midas/trunk/src/midas.c
Repository Root: svn+ssh://svn@savannah.psi.ch/repos/meg/midas
Repository UUID: 050218f5-8902-0410-8d0e-8a15d521e4f2
Revision: 5297
Node Kind: file
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: olchanski
Last Changed Rev: 5294
Last Changed Date: 2012-06-15 10:45:35 -0700 (Fri, 15 Jun 2012)
Text Last Updated: 2012-06-29 17:05:14 -0700 (Fri, 29 Jun 2012)
Checksum: 8d7907bd60723e401a3fceba7cd2ba29

K.O.
  829   17 Aug 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiBug Reportlaunching roody kills the analyzer
> I've installed midas (Rev:5294) on SLC6.3 (64bit), along with recent trunk versions of rootana and roody. 
>
> #6 root_server_thread (arg=ox7f54fc001150) at src/mana.c:5154

You are connecting to mana, the old midas analyzer. The code for connecting to it is still present in roody,
but I cannot support the matching server code in mana.c - it is 2 revolutions behind the current state of
the ROOT object server (look in ROOTANA - the NetDirectory stuff and the latest is the XmlServer stuff).

I can offer 2 solutions - switch from mana.c to a ROOTANA based analyzer or graft the XmlServer code
into your analyzer (it is very simple - you need to create an XmlServer object and tell it which ROOT
containers you want to make visible to ROODY).

I guess you can also debug the old midas server code inside mana.c...

K.O.
  837   26 Sep 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiBug Reportlaunching roody kills the analyzer
> > 
> > I guess you can also debug the old midas server code inside mana.c...
> > 

I ended up doing this. (After receiving some discussion by email).

Remembered that this is an old problem with the old midasServer network
protocol in mana.c - if mana.c is compiled 32-bit, it sends 32-bit pointers, if compiled 64-bit
it sends 64-bit pointers. On the receiving end (in roody), the ROOT TMessage object does not
provide any easy way to tell between them (i.e. object length is reported as 12 or 16 for the two cases).

To make things more interesting, the midasServer code in ROOTANA always sends 32-bit "pointers",
(which are not pointers but 32-bit integer cookies).

I use the ROOTANA midasServer to test ROODY (I have no working mana.c analyzers available),
and ROODY expects to receive 32-bit "pointers", so the two are consistent.

But if I compile my midasServer to send/receive 64-bit "pointers" (cookies), I reproduce this crash. What I can reproduce I can "fix".

If I change the code in ROODY to receive and return 64-bit "pointers" (cookies), both 32-bit and 64-bit midasServer seems to work okey.

This is committed as roody svn rev 248. (https://ladd00.triumf.ca/svn/roody/trunk)

It is the same fix as suggested by Cheng-Ju Stephen Lin [cjslin@lbl.gov].

I hope this helps (or breaks the ROODY midasServer connection for everybody. I hope not).

K.O.
  843   13 Dec 2012 Konstantin OlchanskiBug Reportss_thread_kill() kills entire program
> Hi, I'm having some trouble getting ss_thread_kill() to work properly. It seems 
> to kill the entire program instead of just the thread.

You cannot kill a thread. It's not a well defined operation. Most OSes do have the 
technical possibility to kill threads, but if you use them, you will not like the 
results. For a taste of small trouble, if a thread is holding a lock and you kill 
it, who's job is it to release the lock?

The best you can do is to ask the thread to gracefully shutdown itself. (I.e. by 
using global variable flags).

P.S. I did not implement the ss_thread stuff, I do not know what ss_thread_kill() 
does, but I recommend that you do not use it.

P.P.S. Programming using threads is complicated, I recommend that you read at least 
some literature on the topic before using threads. At the least you must understand 
the common pitfalls and mistakes. At the least, you must know about deadlocks, 
livelocks, race conditions and semaphore priority inversions.

K.O.
  854   24 Jan 2013 Konstantin OlchanskiInfoCompression benchmarks
In the DEAP experiment, the normal MIDAS mlogger gzip compression  is not fast enough for some data 
taking modes, so I am doing tests of other compression programs. Here is the results.

Executive summary:

fastest compression is no compression (cat at 1800 Mbytes/sec - memcpy speed), next best are:
"lzf" at 300 Mbytes/sec and  "lzop" at 250 Mbytes/sec with 50% compression
"gzip -1" at around 70 Mbytes/sec with around 70% compression
"bzip2" at around 12 Mbytes/sec with around 80% compression
"pbzip2", as advertised, scales bzip2 compression linearly with the number of CPUs to 46 Mbytes/sec (4 
real CPUs), then slower to a maximum 60 Mbytes/sec (8 hyper-threaded CPUs).

This confirms that our original choice of "gzip -1" method for compression using zlib inside mlogger is 
still a good choice. bzip2 can gain an additional 10% compression at the cost of 6 times more CPU 
utilization. lzo/lzf can do 50% compression at GigE network speed and at "normal" disk speed.

I think these numbers make a good case for adding lzo/lzf compression to mlogger.

Comments about the data:

- time measured is the "elapsed" time of the compression program. it excludes the time spent flushing 
the compressed output file to disk.
- the relevant number is the first rate number (input data rate)
- test machine has 32GB of RAM, so all I/O is cached, disk speed does not affect these results
- "cat" gives a measure of overall machine "speed" (but test file is too small to give precise measurement)
- "gzip -1" is the recommended MIDAS mlogger compression setting
- "pbzip2 -p8" uses 8 "hyper-threaded" CPUs, but machine only has 4 "real" CPU cores

<pre>
cat                 : time   0.2s, size    431379371    431379371, comp   0%, rate 1797M/s 1797M/s
cat                 : time   0.6s, size   1013573981   1013573981, comp   0%, rate 1809M/s 1809M/s
cat                 : time   1.1s, size   2027241617   2027241617, comp   0%, rate 1826M/s 1826M/s

gzip -1             : time   6.4s, size    431379371    141008293, comp  67%, rate  67M/s  22M/s
gzip                : time  30.3s, size    431379371    131017324, comp  70%, rate  14M/s   4M/s
gzip -9             : time  94.2s, size    431379371    133071189, comp  69%, rate   4M/s   1M/s

gzip -1             : time  15.2s, size   1013573981    347820209, comp  66%, rate  66M/s  22M/s
gzip -1             : time  29.4s, size   2027241617    638495283, comp  69%, rate  68M/s  21M/s

bzip2 -1            : time  34.4s, size    431379371     91905771, comp  79%, rate  12M/s   2M/s
bzip2               : time  33.9s, size    431379371     86144682, comp  80%, rate  12M/s   2M/s
bzip2 -9            : time  34.2s, size    431379371     86144682, comp  80%, rate  12M/s   2M/s

pbzip2 -p1          : time  34.9s, size    431379371     86152857, comp  80%, rate  12M/s   2M/s (1 CPU)
pbzip2 -p1 -1       : time  34.6s, size    431379371     91935441, comp  79%, rate  12M/s   2M/s
pbzip2 -p1 -9       : time  34.8s, size    431379371     86152857, comp  80%, rate  12M/s   2M/s

pbzip2 -p2          : time  17.6s, size    431379371     86152857, comp  80%, rate  24M/s   4M/s (2 CPU)
pbzip2 -p3          : time  11.9s, size    431379371     86152857, comp  80%, rate  36M/s   7M/s (3 CPU)
pbzip2 -p4          : time   9.3s, size    431379371     86152857, comp  80%, rate  46M/s   9M/s (4 CPU)
pbzip2 -p4          : time  45.3s, size   2027241617    384406870, comp  81%, rate  44M/s   8M/s
pbzip2 -p8          : time  33.3s, size   2027241617    384406870, comp  81%, rate  60M/s  11M/s

lzop -1             : time   1.6s, size    431379371    213416336, comp  51%, rate 261M/s 129M/s
lzop                : time   1.7s, size    431379371    213328371, comp  51%, rate 249M/s 123M/s
lzop                : time   4.3s, size   1013573981    515317099, comp  49%, rate 234M/s 119M/s
lzop                : time   7.3s, size   2027241617    978374154, comp  52%, rate 277M/s 133M/s
lzop -9             : time 176.6s, size    431379371    157985635, comp  63%, rate   2M/s   0M/s

lzf                 : time   1.4s, size    431379371    210789363, comp  51%, rate 299M/s 146M/s
lzf                 : time   3.6s, size   1013573981    523007102, comp  48%, rate 282M/s 145M/s
lzf                 : time   6.7s, size   2027241617    972953255, comp  52%, rate 303M/s 145M/s

lzma -0             : time  27s, size    431379371    112406964, comp  74%, rate  15M/s   4M/s
lzma -1             : time  35s, size    431379371    111235594, comp  74%, rate  12M/s   3M/s
lzma: > 5 min, killed

xz -0               : time  28s, size    431379371    112424452, comp  74%, rate  15M/s   4M/s
xz -1               : time  35s, size    431379371    111252916, comp  74%, rate  12M/s   3M/s
xz: > 5 min, killed
</pre>

Columns are:
compression program
time: elapsed time of the compression program (excludes the time to flush output file to disk)
size: size of input file, size of output file
comp: compression ration (0%=no compression, 100%=file compresses into nothing)
rate: input data rate (size of input file divided by elapsed time), output data rate (size of output file 
divided by elapsed time)

Machine used for testing (from /proc/cpuinfo):
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz
quad core cpu with hyper-threading (8 CPU total)
32 GB quad-channel DDR3-1600.

Script used for testing:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

my $x = join(" ", @ARGV);

my $in  = "test.mid";
my $out = "test.mid.out";
my $tout = "test.time";

my $cmd = "/usr/bin/time -o $tout -f \"%e\" /usr/bin/time $x < test.mid > test.mid.out";

print $cmd,"\n";

my $t0 = time();
system $cmd;
my $t1 = time();

my $c = `cat $tout`;
print "Elapsed time: $c";

my $t = $c;

#system "/bin/ls -l $in $out";

my $sin  = -s $in;
my $sout = -s $out;

my $xt = $t1-$t0;
$xt = 1 if $xt<1;

print "Total time: $xt\n";

print sprintf("%-20s: time %5.1fs, size %12d %12d, comp %3.0f%%, rate %3dM/s %3dM/s", $x, $t, $sin, 
$sout, 100*($sin-$sout)/$sin, ($sin/$t)/1e6, ($sout/$t)/1e6), "\n";

exit 0;
# end

Typical output:

[deap@deap00 pet]$ ./r.perl lzf    
/usr/bin/time -o test.time -f "%e" /usr/bin/time lzf < test.mid > test.mid.out
1.27user 0.15system 0:01.44elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 2800maxresident)k
0inputs+411704outputs (0major+268minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Elapsed time: 1.44
Total time: 3
lzf                 : time   1.4s, size    431379371    210789363, comp  51%, rate 299M/s 146M/s

K.O.
  863   13 Feb 2013 Konstantin OlchanskiInfoReview of github and bitbucket
I have done a review of github and bitbucket as candidates for hosting GIT repositories for collaborative 
DAQ-type projects. Here is my impressions.

1. GIT as a software management tool seems to be a reasonable choice for DAQ-type projects. "master" 
repositories can be hosted at places like github or self-hosted (in the simplest case, only 
http://host/~user web access is required to host a git repository), for each "daq project" aka "experiment" 
one would "clone" the master repository, perform any local modifications as required, with full local 
version control, and when desired feed the changes back to the master repository as direct commits (git 
push), as patches posted to github ("pull requests") or patches emailed to the maintainers (git format-
patch).

2. Modern requirements for hosting a DAQ-type project include:
a) code repository (GIT, etc) with reasonably easy user access control (i.e. commit privileges should be 
assigned by the project administrators directly, regardless of who is on the payroll at which lab or who is 
a registered user of CERN or who is in some LDAP database managed by some IT departement 
somewhere).
b) a wiki for documentation, with similar user access control requirements.
c) a mailing list, forum or bug tracking system for communication and "community building"
d) an ability to web host large static files (schematics, datasheets, firmware files, etc)
e) reasonable web-based tools for browsing the files, looking at diffs, "cvs annotate/git blame", etc.

3. Both github and bitbucket satisfy most of these requirements in similar ways:

a) GIT repositories:
aa) access using git, ssh and https with password protection. ssh keys can be uploaded to the server, 
permitting automatic commits from scripts and cron jobs.
bb) anonymous checkout possible (cannot be disabled)
cc) user management is simple: participants have to self-register, confirm their email address, the project 
administrator to gives them commit access to specific git repositories (and wikis).
dd) for the case of multiple project administrators, one creates "teams" of participants. In this 
configuration the repositories are owned by the "team" and all designated "team administrators" have 
equal administrative access to the project.

b) Wiki:
aa) both github and bitbucket provide rudimentary wikis, with wiki pages stored in secondary git 
repositories (*NOT* as a branch or subdirectory of the main repo).
bb) github supports "markdown" and "mediawiki" syntax
cc) bitbucket supports "markdown" and "creole" syntax (all documentation and examples use the "creole" 
syntax).
dd) there does not seem to be any way to set the "project standard" syntax - both wikis have the "new 
page" editor default to the "markdown" syntax.
ee) compared to mediawiki (wikipedia, triumf daq wiki) and even plone, both github and bitbucket wikis 
lack important features:
1) cannot edit individual sections of a page, only the whole page at once, bad if you have long pages.
2) cannot upload images (and other documents) directly through the web editor/interface. Both wikis 
require that you clone the wiki git repository, commit image and other files locally and push the wiki git 
repo into the server (hopefully without any collisions), only then you can use the images and documents 
in the wiki.
3) there is no "preview" function for images - in mediawiki I can have small size automatically generated 
"preview" images on the wiki page, when I click on them I get the full size image. (Even "elog" can do this!)
ff) to be extra helpful, the wiki git repository is invisible to the normal git repository graphical tools for 
looking at revisions, branches, diffs, etc. While github has a special web page listing all existing wiki 
pages, bitbucket does not have such a page, so you better write down the filenames on a piece of paper.

c) mailing list/forum/bug tracking:
aa) both github and bitbucket implement reasonable bug tracking systems (but in both systems I do not 
see any button to export the bug database - all data is stuck inside the hosting provider. Perhaps there is 
a "hidden button" somewhere).
bb) bitbucket sends quite reasonable email notifications
cc) github is silent, I do not see any email notifications at all about anything. Maybe github thinks I do not 
want to see notices about my own activities, good of it to make such decisions for me.

d) hosting of large files: both git and wiki functions can host arbitrary files (compared to mediawiki only 
accepting some file types, i.e. Quartus pof files are rejected).

e) web based tools: thumbs up to both! web interfaces are slick and responsive, easy to use.

Conclusions:

Both github and bitbucket provide similar full-featured git repository hosting, user management and bug 
tracking.

Both provide very rudimentary wiki systems. Compared to full featured wikis (i.e. mediawiki), this is like 
going back to SCCS for code management (from before RCS, before CVS, before SVN). Disappointing. A 
deal breaker if my vote counts.

K.O.
  866   08 Mar 2013 Konstantin OlchanskiInfoODB /Experiment/MAX_EVENT_SIZE
Somebody pointed out an error in the MIDAS documentation regarding maximum event size 
supported by MIDAS and the MAX_EVENT_SIZE #define in midas.h.

Since MIDAS svn rev 4801 (August 2010), one can create events with size bigger than 
MAX_EVENT_SIZE in midas.h (without having to recompile MIDAS):

To do so, one must increase:
- the value of ODB /Experiment/MAX_EVENT_SIZE
- the size of the SYSTEM shared memory event buffer (and any buffers used by the event builder, 
etc)
- max_event_size & co in your frontend.

Actual limits on the bank size and event size are written up here:
https://ladd00.triumf.ca/elog/Midas/757

The bottom line is that the maximum event size is limited by the size of the SYSTEM buffer which is 
limited by the physical memory of your computer. No recompilation of MIDAS necessary.

K.O.
ELOG V3.1.4-2e1708b5