Keywords: DataAccWG > database storage estimates > - latest version uses input from Zeljko, database size > increased by ~50% > - now it is 600 TB data after the first year > - Tim: number of sources seems too large, will check the > spreadsheet in more details and start email discussion
The current numbers use the number of visits per field-filter needed for the weak lensing for all fields and this is clearly not correct for the Galactic plane/bulge fields. It is those fields in the red filters which are driving the number of objects. So, the catalog has the correct numbers, but the temporal database is overestimated. I thought the science council was going to provide some guidance on observing cadences/frequencies for Galactic fields, but haven't heard anything. Until we have an idea what the cadences/frequencies are we might as well stick with the conservative (overly large) estimate we have. I must admit to a bit of sloppiness in mixing design and stretch goals. We have been assuming 1000 visits for the weak lensing fields (design goal) and 20,000 square degrees (stretch goal). So, a question for Jeff (&Tim) should we be sizing for the design numbers or the stretch numbers? _______________________________________________ LSST-data mailing list [email protected] http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
