[evla-sw-discuss] C125660

[Michael Rupen]

> How should we handle idcaf errors during Widar tests?
>
> Cheers,
> Pat

I'm with Ken -- we don't care about IDCAF errors during WIDAR-0 tests.

         Michael

> Ken Sowinski wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Jim Ogle wrote:
>>
>>> Work status on work order number C125660 is OPEN / AFFECTS DATA
>>>
>>> Work Requested:  Failure-I was running CO555ed (a WIDAR File) with a
>>> CALSUR_X07hr_7.evla. When the CALSUR program changed to another CALSUR
>>> program, my F10 stopped and there was an alert that says Vispipe Data
>>> Size (too large). I waited 3 minutes, to go back to "Normal". I followed
>>> Kens IdCaf instructions, but to no avail. I then stopped both scripts as
>>> per Sowiniskis (idcaf/d10 complaints and failures) instructions.  I
>>> started Xsysstart. My F10 started working again and the Alert message
>>> went away. I loaded C0555ed up again and the similar thing happened,
>>> this time with Sysstartx. The same thing happened (the F10 stopped and
>>> the VISPIPE error message came back). I then Restarted Idcaf and ran
>>> Xsysstart. It ran fine. I first called Sowinski and apprised him of the
>>> situation. He said Rupens file had nothing to do with IdCaf.  He asked
>>> me if I was running anything now, and I replied, I am running only
>>> C0555ed.evla (I was suspecting the reoccurrence of the same exact
>>> problem; mainly the F10 stopping giving CALSUR readings and unexpected
>>> dumping of CALSUR data which caused the problem) (Visipipe).   Rupen put
>>> in his instructions "Feel free to run anything you wish using the rest
>>> of the array (e.g., CALSUR is fine)". I tried to call M. Rupen at work,
>>> at WIDAR Test Area and his home. I received no answer. I left him a
>>> voicemail. I also sent K. Sowinski and M. Rupen an email telling them of
>>> the problem. While C0555ed.evla was running, Executor was switching  the
>>> non-WIDAR antennas programs it did happen.  I suspect that this WIDAR
>>> Test Experiment will have to be redone. Cause unknown, this should be
>>> looked at by a tech. SS 15:00 UTC.
>>
>> Not a problem.  idcaf is not necessary for Widar observations,
>> and observations with the old correlator during Widar tests
>> are of secondary importance.  The Widar data looks OK in the
>> formal sense that it appeared in the archive.
>>
>
>