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 [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C5491FF15E
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 21:42:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C707355FC;
Tue, 8 Apr 2025 21:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 21:42:28 +0200
From: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <20250408214228.0828b3d0@rosa.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <6b9dd950-f2fe-4397-b5b6-09f4578abcc7@proxmox.com>
References: <20250408163250.355449-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
<20250408163250.355449-2-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
<6b9dd950-f2fe-4397-b5b6-09f4578abcc7@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.064 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-network 1/1] frr: enable frr service on
reloading the controller config
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>
Cc: 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>
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 20:43:17 +0200
Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote:
> On 08/04/2025 18:32, Stefan Hanreich wrote:
> > Since we now ship frr with Proxmox VE, the frr service is available on
> > the nodes but disabled on install. Prior to that users had to manually
> > install frr, which automatically enabled the service. When applying a
> > SDN configuration with an EVPN controller, we invoke systemctl restart
> > frr, which leads to the service running but still being in the
> > disabled state. This means that the EVPN setup is working until the
> > next reboot. To avoid the situation where users configure an EVPN
> > controller and everything seems to be working, until a restart breaks
> > the EVPN setup, additionally enable the frr service before restarting
> > it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/EvpnPlugin.pm | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/EvpnPlugin.pm b/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/EvpnPlugin.pm
> > index c245ea2..4249cc5 100644
> > --- a/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/EvpnPlugin.pm
> > +++ b/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/EvpnPlugin.pm
> > @@ -638,6 +638,7 @@ sub reload_controller {
> > };
> > if ($@) {
> > warn "frr reload command fail. Restarting frr.";
> > + run_command(['systemctl', 'enable', 'frr']);
>
> can we guard this with an file exists check for
> "/etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/frr.service"? Not a must, but does
> not feel right to unconditionally call systemctl enable.
while talking off-list with Gabriel and Stefan I argued that `systemctl
is-enabled` probably costs as much as running `systemctl enable` for a
service (open socket - tell pid 1 to do stuff, wait for result) - so
now took the time to look into it (with strace, and ignoring what pid 1
does) - in this case the output of `strace -yyttf systemctl enable frr`
vs. `strace -yyttf systemctl is-enabled frr` is around 2.5 orders of
magnitude (58k vs 9.9M) - and even for a service which does not ship an
init-script anymore (thus causing a few forks for systemd-sysv-install),
it's 56k vs 3.3M.
in any-case a `-e /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/frr.service`
is probably the most economic version.
I tried figuring out if this check could break due to external
cirumstances - if the service is started as part of a target and that
target is pulled into multi-user.target - the symlink is not present
(e.g. zfs-zed) - but even then we'd fall back to the "expensive" enabling.
summing up - the existence check seems sensible to me as well.
>
> > eval { run_command(['systemctl', 'restart', 'frr']); };
> > }
> > }
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel