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 0E23E1FF146 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:53:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B6B5CB226; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:53:19 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:52:41 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Daniel Kral" To: "Dominik Rusovac" , Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-ha-manager 4/7] test: re-adjust logged imbalance values X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-136-gdb9fe9896a79-dirty References: <20260427132031.220468-1-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> <20260427132031.220468-5-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260427132031.220468-5-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777366265972 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.078 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: 3WGSBSCBOMO54QVNSBVR2CADQA573PPU X-Message-ID-Hash: 3WGSBSCBOMO54QVNSBVR2CADQA573PPU X-MailFrom: d.kral@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 Mon Apr 27, 2026 at 3:20 PM CEST, Dominik Rusovac wrote: > Signed-off-by: Dominik Rusovac > --- This patch should have some commentary in its patch notes why these values change and why this causes some of the test cases to reduce the amount of balancing migrations and include the reason in the patch summary (subject). AFAICT it's already nice to see here that the selected migrations are the same, but because of the default imbalance threshold some of the previously done balancing migrations are cut. Might be a discussion point to lower the default imbalance threshold value to roughly the mapped value or if it still is a good default value for most systems, but that needs more evaluation and is besides this patch.