Kem:  gee, I would hope that those kinds of queries are not precluded,
since those are likely to be the most "interesting" (novel) events, 
which ought to be broadcast to the world ASAP.

- Kirk


> Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 14:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kem Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [LSST-data] Base Camp Database requirements
> To: LSST Data Management <[email protected]>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> So, we may not need all the static data, but I thought that it would be
> value added to be able to say that a new transient occured at the position
> of a known, but non-variable object (say a distant, barely resolved
> galaxy), or that  a new transient appeared x arcsec offset from the
> nucleus of a rather well resolved galaxy. or that there was a transient at
> the position of a known M dwarf (perviously non-variable).
> 
> Kem
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > A few thoughts following our telecon:
> >
> > Jacek Becla wrote:
> >
> >> Keywords: DataAccWG
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I just had a quick word with Kem, here is the summary plus
> >> some estimates/comments I added.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) What is the expected size of pre-cached archived data
> >> at the base camp?
> >> We are expecting to have roughly 100TB of image data,
> >> corresponding catalog data will probably be ~10% of that
> >> So it is ~10TB (upper bound).
> >>
> >> 2) How much of that data will be needed on average per image?
> >> ~5GB (upper bound)
> >>
> > I think we need a combination of deep object data, which does not have
> > time history (it is constructed from deep stacks of images over a long
> > time span), and shallower object data which does have time history.  For
> > the deep object data, if we assume 50 galaxies per arcmin**2, we have
> > about 2e6 objects per image.   We need to work on the object data
> > definition, but let's suppose that for each filter we keep three
> > different kinds of magnitudes and their associated errors.    We will
> > have some kind of classification, and a variety of data quality flags.
> > There will also be detailed shape information, but we likely don't need
> > this at base, so I ignore that here.   If each of those mags/errors is a
> > 32 bit float, the flags take 16 bits, and the classification 8 bits, and
> > we have 5 bands (U will not go deep), then we need 2e6*5 filters*(3
> > mags*2 quantities/mag * 4 bytes/quantity + 3 bytes for flags) = 2.7 GB.
> >
> > The time dependent data will basically be limited to stars at roughly
> > 25th in V.  The density on the sky is highly variable, but an average
> > value of about 2 per arcmin**2 is probably not too far off.   This gives
> > us roughly 1e5 stars per image on average.  I think we will need summary
> > information for each star, plus perhaps the most recent ten measurements
> > (in whichever bands we have them).   Again, we suffer from not having
> > defined our object data well.   But suppose we summarize the star with
> > 10 floats per band, and then have for each time point 2 floats plus 2
> > bytes of quality flags.   Then for each star we need 5*10*4 + 10*(2*4 +
> > 2) = 300 bytes.   The total for stars is then 0.07 GB.
> >
> > So, given the assumptions about what we need,  I certainly think that
> > Kem's number is in the right ballpark.  However, I wonder if we really
> > need to prestage all this data for every image.    After all, we are
> > operating on difference images at base, and even granted that the
> > detection are supplemented by some list of objects to always measure, we
> > will be needing object information for only a tiny fraction of the stars
> > in the image - perhaps a few percent.   So, we need to fetch info for a
> > few * 1e3 objects from the total of 2e6 total (mostly deep) objects for
> > which we have data.   Does this change our strategy?
> >
> > Tim
> _______________________________________________
> LSST-data mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kirk D. Borne
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, SSDOO Program Manager, QSS Group Inc.
and George Mason University, Associate Research Professor, College of Science
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Tel. +1-301-286-0696  Fax: 301-286-1771
Staff page:      http://rings.gsfc.nasa.gov/~borne/ 
US Virtual Observatory:  http://www.us-vo.org/
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope:  http://www.lssto.org/

_______________________________________________
LSST-data mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data

Reply via email to