Reports until 17:57, Wednesday 27 January 2016
H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:57, Wednesday 27 January 2016 - last comment - 11:46, Wednesday 03 February 2016(25216)
Count of RFM IPC channels on H1 and L1

H1 has 30 sender RFM channels on each arm, of which only 26 have corresponding receiver(s). So 4 are being sent and no model is using the data.

L1 has 29 senders on the X-ARM (of which there are 26 receivers), and 30 senders on the Y-ARM (of which there are 26 receivers).

So the two sites are very close in number of sending channels.

Analysis details: The base number of potential senders was derived from the main IPC file, looking for RFM0 and RFM1 ipc types. This resulted in 30 for H1-X and H1-Y, and 42 for L1-X and L1-Y. Because the ipc file is only appended to during compilation, if it has not been cleanly regenerated recently it may overcount the number of sending channels.

For each channel, I searched the models' RCG generated IPC_STATUS.adl medm file for the channel name (e.g. H1LSC_IPC_STATUS.adl). Assuming that no two ipc channels share the same name, if I found the channel name in the adl file this means it is a running sender with a receiver. For the remaining possible senders without receivers (H1-X=4, H1-Y=4, L1-X=16, L1-Y=16) I looked for the channels in the top level simulink source files (e.g. /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/*/l1/models/l1*.mdl). This showed that all four channels on H1-X and H1-Y do have sending models, and for L1-X 3 of the 16 had sending models, and for L1-Y 4 of the 16 had sending models.

If we can possibly remove some of the RFM channels which are not being received, additional RFM channels can be added to the loop with no risk.

For H1 the sending channels with no receivers are:

Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:03, Friday 29 January 2016 (25240)CAL, SEI
Link 

Tagging people interested in adding new (or rather, trading for) RFM channels.

SEI: IFO Basis SEI channels

CAL: Sending PCAL excitations to the corner.
brian.lantz@LIGO.ORG - 11:46, Wednesday 03 February 2016 (25350)
Link 

Dave,
Thanks for the count.
For the SUSpoint motion in the IFO basis, (see  ECR E1600028 , or  Integration Issue 1193 , or  Tech Doc T1500610 )

we need 2 RFM channels, 1 per arm for the ETMX SUS-WIT and ETMY SUS-WIT each to OAF in the corner.

For completeness, I note that we also need some PCIe channels from the top level of other 12
suspensions (3 IMCs, 3 SRMs, 3 PRMs, BS, ITMX, ITMY). 

These can replace the GS-13 X/Y signals now being used by OAF. Evidently the RFM senders for these are living in the PEM model at LLO. I do not know why it is done this way, but it may be related to the configuration of the FE machine for ISI at LLO.


ALSO (1) :

for more complete monitoring, it would be useful to also send the STS-2 X/Y signal from the end to OAF.

ALSO (2):
For Earthquake common mode control (still hypothetical) we would need to send the End X or Y STS-2 to the corner, and ALSO send the corner X/Y out to the ends.

Summary of RFM:
1 per arm from SUS to OAF (high priority) 
1 per arm from ISI-GND to OAF (med priority)
1 per arm from GND-ITMY X to End X and ITMY-Y to End Y (med priority)

NOTE- these signals don't need to be 16k. We want accurate data at 1 Hz and below, so 512 sample/sec would be fine. Thus, it is not crazy to think about ways to de-stress the RMF system (e.g. interleave several slow channels on one fast RFM connection, or something like this.)