-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
fine tune LS to be run for data WFs #40261
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40261/33310
|
A new Pull Request was created by @sunilUIET (sunil bansal) for master. It involves the following packages:
@bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@@ -3344,7 +3349,7 @@ def gen2021HiMix(fragment,howMuch): | |||
steps['HARVESTPROMPTRUN3']=merge([{'--data':'', '-s':'HARVESTING:@allForPrompt','--era':'Run3'},steps['HARVESTDRUN3']]) | |||
|
|||
|
|||
steps['HARVESTRUN3']=merge([{'--data':'', '-s':'HARVESTING:@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM'},steps['HARVESTDRUN3']]) | |||
steps['HARVESTRUN3']=merge([{'--data':'', '-s':'HARVESTING:@standardDQM+@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM','--era':'Run3'},steps['HARVESTDRUN3']]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you sure on HARVESTING:@standardDQM
?
Does it not look on TriggerResults::HLT
which is not what you expect, i.e. relvals workflow run with reHLT, i.e. https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py#L452
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks Phat! Then which DQM sequence will be an appropriate choice?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @sunilUIET
Sorry, I don't know. The above is only my guess from skimming quickly on configuration. I may be wrong.
You may clarify with @cms-sw/dqm-l2 @cms-sw/hlt-l2
Hi @srimanob , In Run 2 we used a setup with standardDQMFakeHLT, so we can use the same sequence for Run 3. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40261/33331
|
Pull request #40261 was updated. @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please check and sign again. |
@cmsbuild please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b19ad3/29601/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+Upgrade |
+pdmv |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
@@ -2781,7 +2786,7 @@ def gen2021HiMix(fragment,howMuch): | |||
steps['RECODR3_reHLT_HLTPhysics_Offline']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,PAT,ALCA:TkAlMinBias+HcalCalIterativePhiSym+HcalCalIsoTrkProducerFilter+HcalCalHO+HcalCalHBHEMuonProducerFilter,DQM:@commonReduced+@miniAODDQM','--procModifiers':'siPixelQualityRawToDigi'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) | |||
steps['RECODR3_reHLT_AlCaTkCosmics_Offline']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,SKIM:EXONoBPTXSkim,PAT,ALCA:TkAlCosmicsInCollisions,DQM:@standardDQMFakeHLT+@miniAODDQM'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) | |||
|
|||
steps['RECONANORUN3_reHLT']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,PAT,NANO:PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/V10/nano_cff,DQM:@standardDQM+@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) | |||
steps['RECONANORUN3_reHLT']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,PAT,NANO:PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/V10/nano_cff,DQM:@standardDQMFakeHLT+@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This makes no sense. If it is a re-HLT workflow we do want to look at the HLT monitoring!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @mmusich
Thanks for the comment. Please open the PR. Thx.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
PR description:
This PR is fine tune/fixing a few settings for data WFs
PR validation:
However, changes are straight forward but a local test is performed with WF ID 140.042
If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for: