Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@germanfgv
Copy link
Contributor

Before #4566, choosing a particular processing site implied that we were using the same site as storage. Now we have the ability to process data in T2_CH_CERN while storing output in different disk sites. This feature is currently being use in production to write output data to T0_CH_CERN_Disk and to test EOS configurations with EOS_PILOT.

Given this development, our previous way of configuring sites needed to be reworked. This PR does that by adding the following fields to the Tier0 configuration:

  • Added StorageSite as a Global configuration parameter aside from ProcessingSite: This makes it more clear to pick different storage sites.

  • Added Site configurations: Now we can specify relevant information when using a new site

Now TFC and site local config files are overriten only when there is a difference between ProcessingSite and StorageSite

@cmsdmwmbot
Copy link

Container Tests
No container is available now

streamerPNN = "T0_CH_CERN_Disk"

addSiteConfig(tier0Config, "T0_CH_CERN_Disk",
siteLocalConfig="/cvmfs/cms.cern.ch/SITECONF/T0_CH_CERN/JobConfig/site-local-config.xml",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Due that this siteLocalConfig and overrideCatalog have a default value within the function addSiteConfig, Is it mandatory to use it again here in the OfflineConfig file??

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it is not mandatory. But I think is worth adding it explicitly, so it is clear to everyone what values we are using. Like when we add a default Repack config or default dataset config.

Copy link
Contributor

@jhonatanamado jhonatanamado left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added some minor comments. The only mandatory thing to change is the value for processingSite. Please add the correct value and update the ProducitonOfflineConfig file :)

@cmsdmwmbot
Copy link

Container Tests
No container is available now

@jhonatanamado
Copy link
Contributor

@drkovalskyi , I tested this PR with a replay, checked the changes and everything looks good. Any comments ?

@drkovalskyi
Copy link

Looks reasonable to me. Can we fix the checks so that we don't have failed test before we merge?

@germanfgv
Copy link
Contributor Author

run unit test please

@cmsdmwmbot
Copy link

Container Tests
Unit tests finished

@germanfgv
Copy link
Contributor Author

germanfgv commented Aug 10, 2021

@drkovalskyi there was a few issues with the unit test set up. I fixed them. Now it is working and makes more sense. We can talk about them tomorrow. For now I think we can merge this PR.

@germanfgv germanfgv merged commit 2b1cf1b into dmwm:master Aug 10, 2021
@germanfgv germanfgv deleted the sites branch September 7, 2022 08:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants