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 116621FF16F for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 09:14:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F0F883EFB8; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 09:15:41 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2025 09:15:38 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" Cc: "pve-devel" From: "Daniel Kral" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20250804141204.207216-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250804141204.207216-2-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1754378119193 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.013 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 docs 2/5] ha: rules: update about mixed usage of node and resource affinity rules 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" Hey Hannes, thanks for the quick review! On Mon Aug 4, 2025 at 5:09 PM CEST, Hannes Duerr wrote: > On Mon Aug 4, 2025 at 4:11 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: >> +If there are HA resources in a node affinity rule, which are also part of a >> +positive resource affinity rules, then all the other HA resources in the > s/rules/rule/ ACK! >> +positive resource affinity rule inherit the node affinity rule as well. >> + >> +For example, if the HA resources `vm:100`, `vm:101`, and `vm:102` are in a >> +positive resource affinity rule, and `vm:102` is in a node affinity rule, which >> +restricts `vm:102` to be only on `node3`, then `vm:100` and `vm:101` are >> +restricted to be only on `node3` as well. >> + >> +Note that if there are two or more HA resources of a positive resource affinity >> +rules, which are in different node affinity rules, then those will be disabled >> +as it is currently not supported. For more information on these cases, see the > Please note that if there are two or more HA resources in a positive > resource affinity rule and in different node affinity rules, these > will be disabled, as this is not currently supported. Thanks, will change that with slightly more emphasis that the rules will be disabled and not the HA resources. >> +section about xref:ha_manager_rule_conflicts[rule conflicts and errors] below. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel