Re: [pve-devel] [RFC cluster/ha-manager 00/16] HA colocation rules

[Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>]

Am 25.03.25 um 17:47 schrieb Daniel Kral:
> On 3/25/25 16:12, Daniel Kral wrote:
>> Colocation Rules
>> ----------------
>>
>> The two properties of colocation rules, as described in the
>> introduction, are rather straightforward. A typical colocation rule
>> inside of the config would look like the following:
>>
>> colocation: some-lonely-services
>>     services vm:101,vm:103,ct:909
>>     affinity separate
>>     strict 1
>>
>> This means that the three services vm:101, vm:103 and ct:909 must be
>> kept separate on different nodes. I'm very keen on naming suggestions
>> since I think there could be a better word than 'affinity' here. I
>> played around with 'keep-services', since then it would always read
>> something like 'keep-services separate', which is very declarative, but
>> this might suggest that this is a binary option to too much users (I
>> mean it is, but not with the values 0 and 1).
> 
> Just to document this, I've played around with using a score to decide
> whether the colocation rule is positive/negative, how strict and to
> allow specifying a value on how much it is desired to meet the
> colocation rule in case of an optional colocation rule, much like
> pacemaker's version.
> 
> But in the end, I ditched the idea, since it didn't integrate well and
> it was also not trivial to find a good scale for this weight value that
> would correspond similarly as the node priority in HA groups, for
> example, especially when we select for each service individually.

The node priority for HA groups is not a weight, but an ordering.

In any case, such a weight for colocation could still be added on top
later if we really want to.


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel