From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.weber@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C508B430F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:57:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2488614D9E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:57:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:57:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6821D4356F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:57:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <c127507f-a1d0-4745-ae03-cf827a602238@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:57:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20230126083214.711099-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <e0509dc7-e60d-778a-a9d2-44b23423ff42@proxmox.com> <nulm4yormskgm7mnato7ljyvrchc52imw5ohhlwrxnsephhg2s@7cwbvconc7lm> From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <nulm4yormskgm7mnato7ljyvrchc52imw5ohhlwrxnsephhg2s@7cwbvconc7lm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.117 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC manager/container/qemu-server/guest-common 0/4] fix #4474: stop tasks may overrule shutdown tasks X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:57:14 -0000 Thanks for the review! I'll prepare a v2 that incorporates the UI changes I suggested earlier. I do have some questions regarding the concurrent tasks scenario in patch #2, see my separate mail. On 17/11/2023 13:31, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: [...] >> On 26/01/2023 09:32, Friedrich Weber wrote: >>> * Does it make sense to have overruling optional? Or should "stop" >>> generally overrule shutdown? This might lead to confusing >>> interactions, as Thomas noted [0]. > > Although whenever I ran into that I had simply misclicked shutdown or > became impatient. I never had any automated shutdown tasks happen. > Yet I still feel like this should be optional ;-) > (I usually just ended up using `qm stop` on the cli :P) Makes sense! (And using `qm stop` sounds like it might save some clicks ...) >>> * Backend: Is there a more elegant way to overrule shutdown tasks, >>> and a better place than pve-guest-common? >>> * Frontend: When stopping a VM/CT, we already ask for confirmation. >>> Is an (occasional) second modal dialog with a lot of text a good user >>> experience? Alternatively, I could imagine a checkbox in the first >>> dialog saying "Overrule any active shutdown tasks". >> >> Actually I don't really like the second modal dialog. What about the >> following: When the user clicks "Stop" and the frontend detects an >> active shutdown task, the already-existing "Confirm" dialog has an >> additional default-off checkbox "Kill active shutdown tasks" (or >> similar). This way the default behavior does not change, but users do >> not have to kill active shutdown tasks manually anymore. > > Sounds good to me. > But maybe don't use the word "kill" 😄 "Replace/Override" should work. Fair point. :) >>> * This patch series forbids `overrule-shutdown=1` for HA-managed VMs/CTs >>> because I didn't know how overruling should work in a HA setting. Do >>> you have any suggestions? > > I think it's okay to disable this for now. Alright!