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 4A0981FF142 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2026 14:19:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 462503160F; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:20:51 +0100 (CET) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Hannes Duerr Subject: Re: [PATCH ha-manager] resources: Expand max_restart option In-Reply-To: (Hannes Duerr's message of "Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:00:20 +0100") References: <20260302122831.319795-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 14:20:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1772457623757 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.967 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 0.012 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 1.188 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 0.93 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: E5Y2RDD6LTVI7CW7JK6ZGJL2PLKPHXGM X-Message-ID-Hash: E5Y2RDD6LTVI7CW7JK6ZGJL2PLKPHXGM 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: Hannes Duerr writes: > On 3/2/26 1:28 PM, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> When read next to `max_relocate` it is not clear which happens first >> after a service fails to start. >> >> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval >> --- >> >> When writting I initially had "When reached, the service will be attempted to be >> relocated" since it was clear it had to be on a "node" but as per HA rules not >> all of them might be eligible or some of them might already have reached the >> max_restart limit. >> >> src/PVE/HA/Resources.pm | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Resources.pm b/src/PVE/HA/Resources.pm >> index 68d9d16..66dd7b4 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/HA/Resources.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Resources.pm >> @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ EODESC >> }, >> max_restart => { >> description => "Maximal number of tries to restart the service on" >> - . " a node after its start failed.", >> + . " a node after its start failed. When reached, the service will be attempted to" >> + . " be relocated on an eligible node.", > The phrasing is a bit too complicated, would the following make sense? > `When reached, the HA manager will try to move the service to another eligible > node.` In such a case I would propose: When reached, the HA manager will try to relocate the service on an eligible node. Lets see if anyone has a preference. >> type => 'integer', >> optional => 1, >> default => 1, -- Maximiliano