From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 8027887A8
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:17:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 640F71B19F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:17:52 +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>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:17:51 +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 9172443DFE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:17:51 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <c8fa7b8c-fb37-5389-1302-2002780d4ee2@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:17:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20221110143800.98047-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20221110143800.98047-14-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221110143800.98047-14-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL -0.032 Adjusted
score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=BAYES_00 -1.9
Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
=?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?record=0A=09?=URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query
to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [manager.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager 04/11] manager: select service
node: add $sid to parameters
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:17:52 -0000
Am 10/11/2022 um 15:37 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> In preparation for scheduling based on static information, where the
> scoring of nodes depends on information from the service's
> VM/CT configuration file (and the $sid is required to query that).
>
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> src/PVE/HA/Manager.pm | 4 +++-
> src/test/test_failover1.pl | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Manager.pm b/src/PVE/HA/Manager.pm
> index 518f64f..63c94af 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/HA/Manager.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Manager.pm
> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ sub get_node_priority_groups {
> }
>
> sub select_service_node {
> - my ($groups, $online_node_usage, $service_conf, $current_node, $try_next, $tried_nodes, $maintenance_fallback) = @_;
> + my ($groups, $online_node_usage, $sid, $service_conf, $current_node, $try_next, $tried_nodes, $maintenance_fallback) = @_;
ok for now, but we seriously need to clean this method signature up, as idea for
some future patch:
$service -> { sid => .., conf => .., current_node => ... }
$affinity -> { groups => ..., usage => ..., tried_nodes => .., maintenance_fallback }
(but not $try_next, that is no info struct but a control flag to the "algorithm
behavior", so it needs to stay separate).
May then also be sensible to adapt the way we save that info in the manager $self,
but not all change at once :)