Skip to content
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

[12_6_X] Switch file catalog back to TFC on the request of T0 #40685

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 3, 2023

Conversation

makortel
Copy link
Contributor

@makortel makortel commented Feb 3, 2023

PR description:

This PR switches the file catalog back to TFC from the Rucio catalog (introduced in #37278). The use of Rucio catalog turned out to be problematic for Tier 0 (for now), so on Tier 0 request (https://cms-talk.web.cern.ch/t/request-for-recompilation-of-cmssw-12-6-2-to-be-used-in-mwgr1/19957/1) this PR changes the file catalog back to TFC for 12_6_X.

FYI @germanfgv @stlammel @nhduongvn

PR validation:

Unit tests in FWCore/Catalog and FWCore/Services pass.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 3, 2023

A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for CMSSW_12_6_X.

It involves the following packages:

  • FWCore/Catalog (core)

@cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @Dr15Jones, @makortel can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@missirol, @wddgit this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

makortel commented Feb 3, 2023

@cmsbuild, please test

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

makortel commented Feb 3, 2023

urgent

(I suppose)

@makortel makortel changed the title [12_6_x] Switch file catalog back to TFC on the request of T0 [12_6_X] Switch file catalog back to TFC on the request of T0 Feb 3, 2023
@germanfgv
Copy link
Contributor

thanks @makortel

@stlammel
Copy link

stlammel commented Feb 3, 2023

A temporary roll back to resolve the WMAgent issue that German discovered seems appropriate. We'll keep the two storage access descriptions in sync as best as we can. (I assume we keep 13_0 switched.)
Thanks,

  • Stephan

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

makortel commented Feb 3, 2023

Thanks Stephan.

(I assume we keep 13_0 switched.)

Keeping 13_0_X in Rucio catalog (storage.json) is my preference as well (which I also stated in dmwm/WMCore#11472). I would also revert this PR in 12_6_X after the WM issue has been solved (and Tier0 would be fine with storage.json).

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 3, 2023

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-453a93/30385/summary.html
COMMIT: ec942de
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2023-02-03-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40685/30385/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially added 5 lines to the logs
  • Reco comparison results: 7 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3458651
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3458623
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • Checked 206 log files, 158 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

makortel commented Feb 3, 2023

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 3, 2023

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_6_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_13_0_X is complete. 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)

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

+1. Needed for mwgr

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

makortel commented Feb 3, 2023

@rappoccio If you intended to merge this PR, the bot didn't recognize the +1 (because of other content in the line)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Feb 3, 2023

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 79e10bd into cms-sw:CMSSW_12_6_X Feb 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants