From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 9D8CA7790B for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:52:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A09DDAAC for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:51:53 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E87BDDA9E for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:51:52 +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 AFEEC45BEF for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:51:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5d8c65ce-68fd-85f4-2770-594390463536@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:51:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/89.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Oguz Bektas , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210428111608.694745-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20210428114221.GA11014@gaia.proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210428114221.GA11014@gaia.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.006 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs] pveproxy: improve LISTEN_IP doc X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:52:23 -0000 On 28.04.21 13:42, Oguz Bektas wrote: >>> + >>> + LISTEN_IP="fe80::d8ee:34ff:fe37:4579%vmbr0" >>> + >>> +After the change you have to restart `pveproxy` for it to take effect: >> >> I'd specifically state that a reload is not enough and then add a small warning that >> a restart can stop some existing workers (not all, but e.g., shell connection is stopped >> and reconnected which may loose info on CTs without a screen/tmux instance running). >> Also, there's a short time window where no new connections are accepted IIRC (albeit >> I was the one fixing that for reload it's been to long since then, so not sure anymore) > > i think the phrasing "you have to restart" already emphasizes this, > adding too many warnings or notes would just confuse users in my > opinion. No, it's clear that something needs to be restarted, but "restart" is a general overused term which can mean lots of things (even reboot for some). > > though i don't see any harm in making the **restart** bold in that > sentence and adding that small warning about possible connection drop. as said, restart is often used for the general semantic thing, be it reload or restart, so this is really not clear. The gui also only triggers a reload, IIRC (pls. check) and thus "restarting" (it's named that way there) from there would not help. You just need to write it in such a way that it is not confusing, then it is not a problem.