From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7803B1FF142 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:36:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5B03B1771A; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:37:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <33fcd2fb-48b2-44a2-9e34-e1511d6101de@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:36:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-cluster 2/2] api: cluster config: create new clusters with lower token coefficient To: Maximiliano Sandoval , Friedrich Weber References: <20260212115928.148999-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <20260212115928.148999-3-f.weber@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1771270608794 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.022 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: D5Q7TKNRNOIJ5CCYYEYBSTPG2JPD5WXR X-Message-ID-Hash: D5Q7TKNRNOIJ5CCYYEYBSTPG2JPD5WXR X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 16.02.26 um 17:00 schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval: >> + 'token-coefficient' => { >> + type => 'integer', >> + description => "Token coefficient to set in the corosync configuration.", >> + default => 125, >> + minimum => 0, >>>From man 5 corosync.conf's token_coefficient documentation: "This value > can be set to 0 resulting in effective removal of this feature.". If we > want to expose setting this to 0 I would document that it has a special > meaning and what does this entail. I would personally feel more > comfortable setting `minimum => 1` for now instead. At least a "see `man 5 corosync.conf` for details might be nice, adding some extra hints here, like how it's roughly used and special values, could be indeed nice too; some of that might be better off in the docs or the verbose_descriptions property though. But I'm not so sure about the actual value to the user of restricting this here? I mean, if we ever would expose this in the UI in some advanced section then one could show clear hints for such special/odd values and their potential implications, for the CLI that's mostly the job of the docs and maybe an extra informal "log" print, but forcing a user editing the corosync.conf manually in case they want to try this, whyever that might be, seems to rather worsen UX not improve it.