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 B97FE1FF137 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 13:49:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BEE3636D61; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 13:50:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 13:50:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-cluster 2/2] api: cluster config: create new clusters with lower token coefficient To: Maximiliano Sandoval , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20260212115928.148999-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <20260212115928.148999-3-f.weber@proxmox.com> <33fcd2fb-48b2-44a2-9e34-e1511d6101de@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Friedrich Weber In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1771332604504 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.012 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: T34Z6WSLY6HAXRHSHGBNAHGCSETJHOJZ X-Message-ID-Hash: T34Z6WSLY6HAXRHSHGBNAHGCSETJHOJZ X-MailFrom: f.weber@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 CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thanks for the review! On 17/02/2026 13:44, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > Thomas Lamprecht writes: > >> Am 16.02.26 um 17:00 schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval: >>>> + 'token-coefficient' => { >>>> + type => 'integer', >>>> + description => "Token coefficient to set in the corosync configuration.", >>>> + default => 125, >>>> + minimum => 0, >>> >From man 5 corosync.conf's token_coefficient documentation: "This value >>> can be set to 0 resulting in effective removal of this feature.". If we >>> want to expose setting this to 0 I would document that it has a special >>> meaning and what does this entail. I would personally feel more >>> comfortable setting `minimum => 1` for now instead. >> >> At least a "see `man 5 corosync.conf` for details might be nice, adding some >> extra hints here, like how it's roughly used and special values, could be >> indeed nice too; some of that might be better off in the docs or the >> verbose_descriptions property though. >> >> But I'm not so sure about the actual value to the user of restricting this >> here? I mean, if we ever would expose this in the UI in some advanced section >> then one could show clear hints for such special/odd values and their potential >> implications, for the CLI that's mostly the job of the docs and maybe an extra >> informal "log" print, but forcing a user editing the corosync.conf manually in >> case they want to try this, whyever that might be, seems to rather worsen UX not >> improve it. > > From corosync.conf(5) I wrongly got the feeling that `0` had some > special-casing going on, but it actually does not. The docs just say in > a somewhat verbose fashion that multiplying with zero generally results > in zero. > > We discussed this off-list a bit and my suggestion in my other reply, > namely: > > "Coefficient used to determine Corosync's token timeout. See the > corosync.conf(5) manual for more details." > > is OK. Yes, I agree my original description was not that fitting, I can send a v2 with this updated description.