From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ACFB1FF140 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:34:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4751E37EA0; Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:34:47 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:34:41 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v2 09/40] resource-scheduling: implement rebalancing migration selection From: "Dominik Rusovac" To: "Daniel Kral" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260324183029.1274972-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260324183029.1274972-10-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774604031322 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.313 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 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: D4UW5GR6NBRSBTJNZPR2HAIEWGE5LGFI X-Message-ID-Hash: D4UW5GR6NBRSBTJNZPR2HAIEWGE5LGFI X-MailFrom: d.rusovac@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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu Mar 26, 2026 at 3:11 PM CET, Daniel Kral wrote: [snip] >>> +/// A possible migration. >>> +#[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, PartialOrd, Ord, Debug, Serialize, Dese= rialize)] >>> +#[serde(rename_all =3D "kebab-case")] >>> +pub struct Migration { >>> + /// The identifier of a leading resource. >>> + pub sid: String, >>> + /// The current node of the leading resource. >>> + pub source_node: String, >>> + /// The possible migration target node for the resource. >>> + pub target_node: String, >> >> nit: on the long run, instead of having `ScoredMigration`,=20 >> it could be more convenient to have a field: >> >> pub imbalance: Option, >> > > Might make sense, but then we can't reuse the same structure in > `MigrationCandidate` anymore, so I would let ScoredMigration be it's own > type, what do you think? > ok, then let's keep it as-is [snip]