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 5229C1FF183 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:35:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AD4DBA4D; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:35:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9fc563b3-6df0-4f9e-80df-6c1834073c33@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:35:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Daniel Kral References: <20250909083539.39675-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250909083539.39675-6-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20250909083539.39675-6-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1757525718591 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.028 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager v2 05/18] rules: add merged positive resource affinity info in global checks 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 09.09.25 um 10:36 schrieb Daniel Kral: > The node affinity and positive resource affinity rule subset is checked > whether the HA resources in a positive resource affinity rule are in > more than one node affinity rule in total. > > This check has the assumption that each positive resource affinity > rule's resource set is disjoint from each other, but this is only done > in the later transformation stage when positive resource affinity with > overlapping HA resources in them are merged to one rule. > > For example, the following inconsistent rules are not pruned: > > - positive resource affinity rule between vm:101 and vm:102 > - positive resource affinity rule between vm:102 and vm:103 > - node affinity rule for vm:101 on node1 > - node affinity rule for vm:103 on node3 This is only a real problem if both node affinity rules are configured to be strict. Your test case (and FWICT code) acts that way, so mostly relevant for the commit message to avoid potential confusion about what rules get/needs to be pruned. Can be improved on applying though, no need for a v3 just for that, just wanted to note it to avoid forgetting it in case I do not get around to finish review here soonish. > > Therefore build the same disjoint positive resource affinity resource > sets as the merge_connected_positive_resource_affinity_rules(...) > subroutine, so that the inconsistency check has the necessary > information in advance. > _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel