From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C071C1FF16E for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:45:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2FFF23242C; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:45:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1494e37b-75cd-4c8c-9fd5-c72e5cd4b9ee@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:44:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> References: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250325151254.193177-13-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250325151254.193177-13-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.036 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager 11/15] test: ha tester: add test cases for strict negative colocation rules 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral: > Add test cases for strict negative colocation rules, i.e. where services > must be kept on separate nodes. These verify the behavior of the > services in strict negative colocation rules in case of a failover of > the node of one or more of these services in the following scenarios: > > - 2 neg. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 3 neg. colocated services in a 5 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 3 neg. colocated services in a 5 node cluster; 2 nodes failing > - 2 neg. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing, but the > recovery node cannot start the service > - Pair of 2 neg. colocated services (with one common service in both) in > a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Two very minor nits and a typo below: > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-strict-separate2/README b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-separate2/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..f494d2b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-separate2/README > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > +Test whether a strict negative colocation rule among three services makes one > +of the services migrate to a different node than the other services in case of > +a failover of the service's previously assigned node. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 must be kept separate > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 are on node3, node4, and node5 respectively > +- node1 and node2 have each both higher service counts than node3, node4 and > + node5 to test the rule is applied even though the scheduler would prefer the > + less utilizied nodes node3, node4, or node5 s/utilizied/utilized/ Nit: I'd not list node5 in that sentence, because its service count is not relevant as the failing node. > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-strict-separate3/README b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-separate3/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..44d88ef > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-separate3/README > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > +Test whether a strict negative colocation rule among three services makes two > +of the services migrate to two different recovery nodes than the node of the > +third service in case of a failover of their two previously assigned nodes. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 must be kept separate > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 are respectively on node3, node4, and node5 > +- node1 and node2 have both higher service counts than node3, node4 and node5 > + to test the colocation rule is enforced even though the utilization would > + prefer the other node3, node4, and node5 Nit: I'd not list node4 and node5 in that sentence, because their service counts are not relevant since they fail. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel