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 7EBB51FF16E for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:51:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A4AB732614; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:51:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2feb8499-0dfa-4a28-810a-45a1db3e436d@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:51:28 +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> <20250325151254.193177-14-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250325151254.193177-14-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 12/15] test: ha tester: add test cases for strict positive 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 positive colocation rules, i.e. where services > must be kept on the same node together. These verify the behavior of the > services in strict positive colocation rules in case of a failover of > their assigned nodes in the following scenarios: > > - 2 pos. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 3 pos. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 3 pos. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing, but the > recovery node cannot start one of the services > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Again minor nits with the descriptions: > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together2/README b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together2/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..c1abf68 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together2/README > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > +Test whether a strict positive colocation rule makes three services migrate to > +the same recovery node in case of a failover of their previously assigned node. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 must be kept together > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 are all currently running on node3 > +- node1 has a higher service count than node2 to test that the rule is applied > + even though it would be usually balanced between both remaining nodes Nit: The balancing would also happen if the service count would be the same on the two nodes, the sentence makes it sound like that it's a requirement for this test. > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together3/README b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together3/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5332696 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together3/README > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > +Test whether a strict positive colocation rule makes three services migrate to > +the same recovery node in case of a failover of their previously assigned node. > +If one of those fail to start on the recovery node (e.g. insufficient > +resources), the failing service will be kept on the recovery node. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101, vm:102, and fa:120002 must be kept together > +- vm:101, vm:102, and fa:120002 are all currently running on node3 > +- fa:120002 will fail to start on node2 > +- node1 has a higher service count than node2 to test that the rule is applied > + even though it would be usually balanced between both remaining nodes Nit: The balancing would also happen if the service count would be the same on the two nodes, the sentence makes it sound like that it's a requirement for this test. You do need it since the failure for the 'fa' service will happen on node 2 however, so you should mention that instead. > + > +Therefore, the expected outcome is: > +- As node3 fails, all services are migrated to node2 > +- Two of those services will start successfully, but fa:120002 will stay in > + recovery, since it cannot be started on this node, but cannot be relocated to > + another one either due to the strict colocation rule _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel