From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED25E1FF0AF for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 10:58:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C25521649; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 10:58:34 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2026 10:58:08 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Daniel Kral" To: "Daniel Kral" , Subject: Re: [PATCH-SERIES ha-manager 0/7] improve handling of maintenance nodes X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0-10-g6373ac9d2179-dirty References: <20260422100035.232716-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260422100035.232716-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793959088103 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.658 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: XDOYM43CVGDLZAVZVK7G7F4ZRGFZON2B X-Message-ID-Hash: XDOYM43CVGDLZAVZVK7G7F4ZRGFZON2B 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list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Superseded-by: https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20261106095650.72865-1-d.= kral@proxmox.com/ On Wed Apr 22, 2026 at 12:00 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > As reported by a recent Proxmox forum post [0], there are some cases > where either HA resources are not moved away from maintenance nodes or > are not moved back to the maintenance nodes after these are put out of > maintenance again. > > Even though we cannot resolve all situations (for example, the affinity > rules constrain the HA resource so that it cannot be moved anywhere but > the maintenance node), this patch series improves the handling with: > > - log warnings if HA resources cannot be moved to a replacement node > - make HA resources with fallback enabled move back to their previous > maintenance node > - make HA resource bundles move back to their previous maintenance node > - try all available, effective priority classes for an HA resource while > applying the negative resource affinity rules > > The last change makes the system more consistent overall, but might > introduce some unintended node placements in highly constrained > scenarios because of how the HA Manager currently resolves these node > placements individually per-HA resource. This should be improved upon in > a future patch series (this bugzilla entry [1] might also be relevant). > > [0] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/182890/ > [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D7475