From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C74FE5D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:18:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B4346185B1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:17:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:17:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA9D343FEF for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:17:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <054cf652-dbfc-4dcb-9650-132990bbe3f1@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:17:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> References: <20230724125431.2492297-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20230724125431.2492297-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230724125431.2492297-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.076 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [suse.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs 2/2] pvecm: add qdevice status flag explanation X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:18:12 -0000 On 24/07/2023 14:54, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > They are underdocumented and finding information is not that easy. > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> > --- > > Found some info in the suse documentation [0] and the sourcecode [1]. Yes, like it was mentioned on the chat a bit ago, luckily we use open source which, if not easy for all to find, is at least the definitive truth – thanks for adding this in our docs now too for our users. > We do not ship man 3 pages, therefore I used a direct link to the github corosync-doc does ship that page.. > repo as that seems to be the only place that talks abit about the MW / > NMW flag. > > [0] https://documentation.suse.com/sle-ha/15-SP1/html/SLE-HA-all/cha-ha-qdevice.html > [1] https://github.com/corosync/corosync/blob/v3.1.7/tools/corosync-quorumtool.c#L524-L536 > > > pvecm.adoc | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/pvecm.adoc b/pvecm.adoc > index 45271e8..e286bdd 100644 > --- a/pvecm.adoc > +++ b/pvecm.adoc > @@ -1082,6 +1082,21 @@ Membership information > > ---- > I'd proactively add a reference here, e.g.: [[pvecm_qdevice_status_flags]] > +QDevice Status Flags > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > + > +The status output of the QDevice, as seen above, will usually contain three > +columns: > + > +* `A` / `NA`: Alive or Not Alive. Indicates if the communication to the external > + `corosync-qndetd` daemon works. > +* `V` / `NV`: If the QDevice will cast a vote for the node. In a split-brain > + situation, where the corosync connection between the nodes is down, but they > + both can still communicate with the external `corosync-qnetd` daemon, > + only one node will get the vote. > +* `MW` / `NMW`: Master wins (`MV`) or not (`NMW`). Default is `NMW`, see footnote:[`votequorum_qdevice_master_wins` manual page https://github.com/corosync/corosync/blob/main/man/votequorum_qdevice_master_wins.3.in]. I really would not link to the manpage source directly on GitHub. I'd either use manpages.debian.org [0] or none at all and refer to the corosync-doc package, which ships it. [0]: https://manpages.debian.org/bookworm/libvotequorum-dev/votequorum_qdevice_master_wins.3.en.html > +* `NR`: QDevice is not registered. > + > > Frequently Asked Questions > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~