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 8D5C51FF164 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2025 15:58:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DC37C3488C; Fri, 25 Apr 2025 15:58:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2b9e6096-76c4-4135-a29a-a8431c7fac7f@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 15:58:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <cab3e44f-1294-429d-8e06-b6743c3cb3a7@proxmox.com> <c93a04b3-b177-4bfc-8a8a-8e10fd635b15@proxmox.com> <d977b382-95ab-4f51-b1ce-8268630a5e24@proxmox.com> <500c452d-581d-4fb7-81d2-fe0f46d29fd6@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <500c452d-581d-4fb7-81d2-fe0f46d29fd6@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] [RFC cluster/ha-manager 00/16] HA 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 25.04.25 um 15:25 schrieb Daniel Kral: > On 4/25/25 14:25, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 25.04.25 um 10:36 schrieb Daniel Kral: >>> On 4/24/25 12:12, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> As suggested by @Lukas off-list, I'll also try to make the check >>> selective, e.g. the user has made an infeasible change to the config >>> manually by writing to the file and then wants to create another rule. >>> Here it should ignore the infeasible rules (as they'll be dropped >>> anyway) and only check if the added rule / changed rule is infeasible. >> >> How will you select the rule to drop? Applying the rules one-by-one to >> find a first violation? > > AFAICS we could use the same helpers to check whether the rules are > feasible, and only check whether the added / updated ruleid is one that > is causing these troubles. I guess this would be a reasonable option > without duplicating code, but still check against the whole config. > There's surely some optimization potential here, but then we would have > a larger problem at reloading the rule configuration for the manager > anyway. For the latter I could check for what size of a larger > configuration this could become an actual bottleneck. > > For either adding a rule or updating a rule, we would just make the > change to the configuration in-memory and run the helper. Depending on > the result, we'd store the config or error out to the API user. ACK, I also don't think we need to worry too much about optimization here yet. >>> But as you said, it must not change the user's configuration in the end >>> as that would be very confusing to the user. >> >> Okay, so dropping dynamically. I guess we could also disable such rules >> explicitly/mark them as being in violation with other rules somehow: >> Tri-state enabled/disabled/conflict status? Explicit field? >> >> Something like that would make such rules easily visible and have the >> configuration better reflect the actual status. >> >> As discussed off-list now: we can try to re-enable conflicting rules >> next time the rules are loaded. > > Hm, there's three options now: > > - Allowing conflicts over the create / update API and auto-resolving the > conflicts as soon as we're able to (e.g. on the load / save where the > rule becomes feasible again). > > - Not allowing conflicts over the create / update API, but set the state > to 'conflict' if manual changes (or other circumstances) made the rules > be in conflict with one another. > > - Having something like the SDN config, where there's a working > configuration and a "draft" configuration that needs to be applied. So > conflicts are allowed in drafts, but not in working configurations. > > The SDN option seems too much for me here, but I just noticed some > similarity. > > I guess one of the first two makes more sense. If there's no arguments > against this, I'd choose the second option as we can always allow > intentional conflicts later if there's user demand or we see other > reasons in that. I do prefer the second option :) _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel