From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] services: add restart on-failure to pvescheduler, pvestatd and spiceproxy
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 15:37:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2a2f7415-8156-493a-9468-403a8177cb3d@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1561ec4d-9935-4c70-860b-3da84f70b8c0@proxmox.com>
Am 26.05.25 um 12:38 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> Am 26.05.25 um 10:45 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
>> Same rationale as 4fd2027e ("service: add restart on-failure to
>> pveproxy and pvedaemon") which added the setting for the pveproxy and
>> pvedaemon services.
>>
>> Suggested for pvestatd in the community forum:
>> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/165597/post-773210
>
> Fine by me in general, but might be good to recheck if the overall behavior
> of the mechanism makes sense, especially with the default RestartSec=100ms
> (man systemd.service) and the default StartLimitBurst=5 (man systemd.unit),
> which basically means that if the problematic condition is still present,
> it will be restart 5 times in a total span of 500 ms, and then not get
> restarted anymore. The StartLimitIntervalSec=10s default is also a limiting
> factor, but when the services fails fast early it's unlikely to be hit.
>
> Maybe increasing the interval between restarts a bit (0.5 to 1s?) and/or
> the burst rate (10 to 20 times) might make sense to survive more temporary
> issues would make more sense – there certainly isn't one size fits all here,
> but 5 times in 500 ms is IMO not that ideal for our services here.
>
> That said, applying this now should not make the status quo worse, beside
> filling the logs with restart failures, making the limited output included
> in the systemctl status commands less useful, but that's hardly a real
> problem.
Yes, this can be better fine-tuned.
Should there be a limit? AFAIU, if we pick e.g. StartLimitBurst=11,
RestartSec=1, then with the default StartLimitIntervalSec=10s, the limit
will never be hit and the service would be tried to be restarted
perpetually. Do we want to keep a limit by also increasing the
StartLimitIntervalSec value accordingly?
I suppose this should be adapted for pvedaemon and pveproxy too then?
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-26 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-26 8:45 Fiona Ebner
2025-05-26 10:38 ` Thomas Lamprecht
2025-05-26 13:37 ` Fiona Ebner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2a2f7415-8156-493a-9468-403a8177cb3d@proxmox.com \
--to=f.ebner@proxmox.com \
--cc=pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
--cc=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox