[g13] tarring skim files

[Paul Mattione]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I believe one of the reasons why  
we tar things together is because we had too many jput commands  
otherwise and the tape silo could not keep up (or something to that  
effect, someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

  - Paul


On Jul 22, 2010, at 4:17 PM, slava at jlab.org wrote:

jput to proper directories. Is there anything else to the aforementioned
combining?

Slava

> Each cooking job cooks a single raw file, and the resulting cooked
> file is then skimmed.  This produces a lot of output files for the
> single job (skims, dsts, ntuples, anahists, gflux, etc).  It's easier
> to just to group all of these files together since they're all
> produced by the same job, than to try to combine things across 50+  
> jobs.
>
>  - Paul
>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:48 PM, slava at jlab.org wrote:
>
> You lost me at "From the standpoint...". Why is it easiest?
>
> Slava
>
>> From the standpoint of cooking, I think the easiest way of writing
>> our skims, dsts, monitoring histograms, etc to tape is to combine  
>> them
>> all into a single tar file for each cooked file.
>>
>> However, this means that in order to extract your skim you have to
>> cache much more (all) of the data from the tapes than if you just had
>> a single tar file for a given skim for a given run.  But if you
>> combine things by run, if anything needs to be re-cooked (e.g. a
>> cooking job fails), you have to re-make all of the tar files
>> associated with that run.
>>
>> How do you guys think we should do it?
>>
>> - Paul
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> g13 mailing list
>> g13 at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g13
>>
>
>