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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A44872F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:05:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A78F31B00B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:05:29 +0100 (CET)
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>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:05:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EDD7443DBA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:05:26 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <0e762675-696f-5cef-74b2-8d83955f2518@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:05:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20221110143800.98047-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20221110143800.98047-17-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221110143800.98047-17-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL -0.032 Adjusted
score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=BAYES_00 -1.9
Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
=?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?record=0A=09?=URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query
to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [pve2.pm, env.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager 07/11] env: add
get_crs_settings() method
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:05:29 -0000
Am 10/11/2022 um 15:37 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> for reading the resource scheduler settings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> src/PVE/HA/Env.pm | 7 +++++++
> src/PVE/HA/Env/PVE2.pm | 12 ++++++++++++
> src/PVE/HA/Sim/Env.pm | 9 +++++++++
> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Env.pm b/src/PVE/HA/Env.pm
> index 00e3e3c..c014ff7 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/HA/Env.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Env.pm
> @@ -269,6 +269,13 @@ sub get_ha_settings {
> return $self->{plug}->get_ha_settings();
> }
>
> +# return cluster wide resource scheduling settings
> +sub get_crs_settings {
> + my ($self) = @_;
> +
> + return $self->{plug}->get_crs_settings();
> +}
> +
we try to keep the Env footprint on the smaller side, if possible; I'd rather add
this to get_ha_settings, either as tuple or from a gut feeling maybe better as hash
To clarify on that we could rename it to get_datacenter_settings first, I'd still
limit it to the relevant ones to avoid info "leakage" that some future patch misuses
then so subtly that we don't notice.
It'd then return:
{
ha => {}
crs => {}
}
fwiw, moving in max_workers would be an option then too, but no need for that in
this series.
maybe throw then also a comment in that changes are only to be taken in between new
LRM rounds or new Manager creation (due to no active one) for stability purpose.