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 73D151FF138
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:58:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A677E7E8D;
	Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:59:01 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com,
	Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC ha-manager 16/21] sim: hardware: add set-dynamic-stats for
 services
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:54:54 +0100
Message-ID: <20260318165820.81517-4-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3
In-Reply-To: <20260217141437.584852-30-d.kral@proxmox.com>
References: <20260217141437.584852-1-d.kral@proxmox.com>
 <20260217141437.584852-30-d.kral@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773853063660
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                    -0.011 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: XAJLY3YXWOCRP545YIA4X6Y4N6KEZ3QW
X-Message-ID-Hash: XAJLY3YXWOCRP545YIA4X6Y4N6KEZ3QW
X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026, Daniel Kral wrote:=0D
> --- a/src/PVE/HA/Sim/Hardware.pm=0D
> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Sim/Hardware.pm=0D
> @@ -213,6 +216,25 @@ sub set_static_service_stats {=0D
> [...]=0D
> +    if (my $memory =3D $new_stats->{mem}) {=0D
> +        $stats->{$sid}->{mem} =3D $memory;=0D
> +    }=0D
> +=0D
> +    if (my $cpu =3D $new_stats->{cpu}) {=0D
=0D
Note that above will skip a value of 0 or 0.0 since those are falsy.=0D
Setting a service's CPU to 0.0 (idle) can be valid though?=0D
If, rather check with if (defined(my $cpu =3D ...)) { instead.=0D
Similar issue with `die ... if !$val` in the command handler.=0D
=0D
> +        die "overcommitted cpu on '$sid'"=0D
> +            if $stats->{$sid}->{cpu} > $stats->{$sid}->{maxcpu};=0D
=0D
The overcommit dies are quite strict for a simulator and AFAICT prevent=0D
testing overcommitted scenarios, which are common in real clusters.=0D