From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF0B1FF137 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 13:44:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7F3EC369A2; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 13:45:05 +0100 (CET) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Thomas Lamprecht Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-cluster 2/2] api: cluster config: create new clusters with lower token coefficient In-Reply-To: <33fcd2fb-48b2-44a2-9e34-e1511d6101de@proxmox.com> (Thomas Lamprecht's message of "Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:36:54 +0100") References: <20260212115928.148999-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <20260212115928.148999-3-f.weber@proxmox.com> <33fcd2fb-48b2-44a2-9e34-e1511d6101de@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 13:44:30 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1771332264397 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.087 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 Message-ID-Hash: I66ECUBX6XT6ZFBNTNVZR3G3NJPA6TNC X-Message-ID-Hash: I66ECUBX6XT6ZFBNTNVZR3G3NJPA6TNC X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@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: 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. -- Maximiliano