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 F2EAC1FF16B for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 07:49:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EF49DC62F; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 07:49:23 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 07:48:50 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Daniel Kral" To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20250919140856.1361124-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250919140856.1361124-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1760075297196 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] applied: [PATCH ha-manager 0/3] fix mixed resource affinity precedence 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" On Fri Sep 19, 2025 at 4:08 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > Some last-minute changes to the positive resource affinity's heuristic > (which is described in the next paragraph) in the initial implementation > broke the mixed usage of resource affinity rules. > > Strict positive resource affinity rules narrow down the possible nodes > to a single candidate for a HA resource A, which is the node, where the > most of the HA resources in the positive affinity rule are already > running on and in case of a tie the alphabetically first node is chosen. > > If the chosen node contains a HA resource B, which is in negative > affinity with the HA resource A, then there will be no possible node > left as it is removed now as well and won't resolve the incorrect node > placement (see the test cases for more details). For completeness, these patches are already applied: 6db0df7c test: add additional mixed resource affinity rule test cases 9ff6a5e1 manager: fix precedence in mixed resource affinity rules usage adae0e3e tests: add regression tests for mixed resource affinity rules _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel