-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
Adding Rucio to DBS-Phedex consistency check #561
Adding Rucio to DBS-Phedex consistency check #561
Conversation
b87239a
to
55fc894
Compare
@ericvaandering Could you please take a look too. And in case I am doing the right thing I will squash them in a single commit and we can merge it. |
The code looks correct, but I really worry about this approach of listing all the files in a dataset on both PhEDEx and Rucio. Unified has a history of overloading services and I think this could easily do that later on when it's expanded beyond NanoAOD. E.g. the premixed pileup dataset has something like 200k files. I'd prefer you implemented what we discussed which is just a count (easier on Rucio) of files in blocks. |
one probably wants to relocate
to something more central. Is that "home" supposed to be large, or just holding the configuration? |
one thing we should do, to make @ericvaandering less worried is to make sure that wmcore takes care of all data consistency before a workflow is set to |
On the client it only holds a small config. On servers it may hold a few other small files. I’m not aware of anything large that ever goes there.
Sent from a mobile device.
|
Hi @vlimant, thanks for the feedback. I will try to search for any old issues regarding data consistency in wmcore. About the place for the Rucio config file - I agree it must be in a more central place. I would leave that to @sharad1126 to decide where it should be, since he is the one to know those machines the best right now. |
0870076
to
e2b9cb8
Compare
Regarding the rucio config file, I would just place it in WmAgentScripts itself. Why to hide it in the
@vlimant @ericvaandering @todor-ivanov any issues putting it in GH repo? The only problem I see is rucio client apparently only checks the following places for the cfg file:
|
Correct. Except it is just unified
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse my brevity or transcription errors.
|
@ericvaandering I hope you don't mind but I just removed all extra lines from your email on the comments. please check if in case I removed anything I shouldn't have. Also, I would suggest you to please reply on the review conversations individually if it's not too much to ask for. thanks. |
@ericvaandering I am just waiting now for two changes in this from @todor-ivanov .
From my side, I just need to pip install the rucio client in all prod machines. |
e2b9cb8
to
3383bf4
Compare
@sharad1126 the account='unified' is added to the default config now. It works with my account, so it should work with the 'unified' too. One question though - Is the unified account using a proxy or a cert/key pair? if the it is a pair then the authentication type needs to be changed to 'x509' instead of 'x509_proxy', and we will need the right cnfiguration variables too. |
Let's just leave it as it is as I confirm that I am able to call rucioclient functions from unified account. @todor-ivanov here is what it returns.
|
@todor-ivanov @ericvaandering just encountered a problem with installing the rucio-client in vocms0268. The production machines which use checkor module are vocms0268, vocms0269 and vocms0273 and therefore I intend to pip install rucio client in these machines only.
@nsmith- any suggestions? |
Some googling suggests you might be missing python headers. Try |
@nsmith- yeah I googled as well before sending but most comments there looked like it is due to some hard coded dependency of python version or similar. So I thought, if one can remove that hard coded dependency and make the version flexible which might help. I need to investigate more before install anything in prod machines. |
At least you can confirm if the |
@nsmith- @ericvaandering we don't have We have the following python-* packages only in all our vocms machines.
|
As it the pip install gave the error: so I checked the configparser in all machines and it is the same:
|
The only difference I just noticed here is:
I have asked Caio to change it in the machine vocms0268 to the 41.4.0 as well in case that is something causing us the issues. Let's wait for his action now. |
Hi Sharad, |
@nsmith- I did check the |
@nsmith- @ericvaandering as expected, it was the issue of setuptools. I just successfully installed rucioclient on vocms0268.
|
I have successfully installed rucio client in all machines which runs checkor module i.e. |
I also created the cfg file to test the client.
|
Super! Thanks @sharad1126 |
3383bf4
to
6e337dd
Compare
Check file presence at both systems - Rucio & Phedex Recalculate missing_phedex with corrections for files managed by Rucio. Typo Check filecount on block level, fetch filecount from metadata instead if len(filenames) Adding 'account=unified' in default config && typo Split unified config lists to relval and nonrelval Split unified config lists to relval and nonrelval / 2
cca87e5
to
892a255
Compare
Fixes #560
Status
tested
Description
Adding a simple wrapper class of the Rucio Client so that we can safely replicate the set of checks done through Phedex and create a default fallback mechanism to Rucio, when it comes to NANOAOD data tiers.
Is it backward compatible (if not, which system it affects?)
YES
Related PRs
N/A
External dependencies / deployment changes
Requires:
Configuration file:
Environment:
Mention people to look at PRs
@sharad1126 @vlimant @amaltaro