1 / 14

Scheduling of Experiments

Scheduling of Experiments. FACET User Meeting . Christine Clarke, 10 th October 2012. 2012 Schedule -- FACET User Run 1. Shift Schedules. https://slacportal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/ard_public/facet/user/Pages/Schedule.aspx Weekly pattern: Wednesday was an Access Day (PAMM)

gari
Download Presentation

Scheduling of Experiments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scheduling of Experiments • FACET User Meeting Christine Clarke, 10th October 2012

  2. 2012 Schedule -- FACET User Run 1

  3. Shift Schedules • https://slacportal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/ard_public/facet/user/Pages/Schedule.aspx • Weekly pattern: • Wednesday was an Access Day (PAMM) • When LCLS access (every other Wednesday), FACET beam needs to turn off • Thursday was Machine Development • MD is a great buffer between PAMM and User shifts • 5 remaining days for experiments • Later in run, Friday morning became MD time too • MD time was extremely beneficial to delivering good beam

  4. Part 1A Schedule Experiment “groups” • Experiments were grouped together so they could cover 24 hours a day for five days straight • Group A: E-203 (Smith-Purcell), E-206 (THz), T-501 (CERN BBA) • Group B: E-201 (DWF), E-205 (Euclid/energy chirp), E-207 (2-channel dielectric), E-204 (Metallic Structures) • Group C: E-200 (PWFA) • Group D: E-202 (Ultrafast EM Switching) – one shift/week due to sample change-over constraints https://slacportal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/ard_public/facet/user/Pages/Schedule.aspx

  5. Issues… • Group A: • Grouping allowed 24 hour coverage but incurred many config changes • This group lost a week due to power outage • With single shifts, some experiments in this group were unfairly penalised by lack of owl shift accelerator physicist • Group B: • Smaller groups dependent on larger group (E-201) for commissioning hardware • E-205 and E-207 didn’t get beam time • How do we transfer knowledge between Group B groups? • A real strain on a few key players in E-201 • Group C: • No unique issues? • Group D: • Frequent rescheduling of the single shift based on condition of machine and plans of other groups.

  6. Most common complaint: • No time to think! • Access day too rushed • Too little time between weeks on shift • Can’t engineer good solutions • Can’t solve what is going wrong

  7. Beam time allocation 2012 • Aim was to give PWFA ~50% of beam-time, group B ~30% and group C+D ~20% • Similar to beam request (time requested PWFA > time requested group B > time requested group C+D) • Perceived to be in line with FACET’s goals • Given relative sizes of the groups, this was what the personnel could support

  8. Future Schedule -- FACET User Run 2 and beyond

  9. Proposal 1.1 – Moving PAMM • As proposed in User Brown Bag in June… • PAMM one day a week (User’s suggested Tuesday) • But there aren’t enough Operators on a Tuesday to regularly support the search and subsequent recovery • Large experiments given a block 3 or 5 days • Preceded by ~2 days PAMM recovery, POMM and MD time • Note set-up time can be longer if next experiment requires it

  10. Proposal 1.2 – Moving PAMM take 2 • There are enough Operators to support a Thursday PAMM • Friday has enough Operators but a PAMM just before a weekend brings risk if there is a bad recovery

  11. Proposal 2 – Double-up • PAMM once a fortnight (at the same time as LCLS) • Longer PAMM • More MD time and more set-up time likely to lead to better delivery • Set-up time could be longer still if next experiment requires it

  12. Combinations, Variations and Further Ideas • Two-day PAMMs with a one week schedule • Is less beam time what we want? • One-day PAMM once a fortnight • Beam quality will improve and there will be more beam time for Users • Interleave MD and set-up with User Time • Scheduling configuration changes during the User Run 1 proved difficult but it is necessary • Schedule beam tuning • Problems arise over time and it may be beneficial to hand over to the Sector0-20 team on a regular and scheduled basis for improved delivery

  13. What’s up with those 8 hour shifts anyway? • 8 hour shifts: • Owl: midnight-8am • Day: 8am-4pm • Swing: 4pm-midnight • Some experiments want less beam time in a single block (E-202) ~4 hour shift. And some operated on 12 hour shift rota (E-201). • SSRL has 11pm-7am, 7am-3pm, 3pm-11pm shifts. • We should not be hung-up on the 8 hour rota if this doesn’t work for us

  14. 20 minute discussion • Talking Points: • Group A, B, C and D: how did that work? • How long should PAMMs be? • Can we have fewer PAMMs or do we need to have more PAMMs? • How long should blocks of experiments be? • How much time should we have for MD? • How do we schedule the set-up time? • Should experiments be interleaved more or less? • Should we schedule beam tuning or leave it to User request? • How do we best schedule the configuration changes? Can we get away without any over owl shifts? • Length and pattern of “shifts” • Better to avoid operator shift change-over? • Can we stagger User shifts with accelerator physicist shifts so we don’t have a User shift that never sees an accelerator physicist?

More Related