Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Send singles rates #55

Open
davidfokkema opened this issue Aug 7, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Send singles rates #55

davidfokkema opened this issue Aug 7, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@davidfokkema
Copy link
Member

The new LabVIEW DAQ does it, we should too!

@153957
Copy link
Member

153957 commented Aug 8, 2018

The new LabVIEW DAQ also sends summaries of GPS signal strengths and number of signals seen:
https://github.com/HiSPARC/station-software/blob/master/user/hsmonitor/HiSPARCSatellites.py
Maybe you should also add those ;)

@davidfokkema
Copy link
Member Author

Is this used somewhere? I finished implementing n_peaks, but I forgot it is not even in the ESD data...

@153957
Copy link
Member

153957 commented Aug 8, 2018

A reason not to do the n_peaks on the station is to save its precious processing power for more important tasks and let the analysis occur offline (on publicdb or locally).

The most important reason to do analysis like pulseheight/integrals on the station might be for (automated) calibration. This is also part of the reason it is performed in the LabView DAQ, also to generated the status plots in the interface, and n_peaks might be used to check for possible light leaks or bad PMTs, or terribly calibrated ADCs...

The GPS data is not used anywhere yet. I might be useful to determine if the timing accuracy of events can be trusted, or if it deviates depending on signal strengths. It might be more important to send than n_peaks, because n_peaks can be derived later, GPS signal strength and singles rates can not.

@davidfokkema
Copy link
Member Author

Since this morning, n_peaks are being send to the server, so it is not a matter of choosing between the two. I'll look into GPS data as well!

@153957
Copy link
Member

153957 commented Aug 9, 2018

I mostly meant that if the newly added n_peaks analysis is to much of a CPU hog then we can always just skip it and do it later, but if it is no issue, that is also great.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants