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 124F11FF16E for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:44:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 37CFE34698; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:45:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38f55fe9-4c1a-4734-826e-7482649087ac@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:44:30 +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> <20250325151254.193177-15-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250325151254.193177-15-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 13/15] test: ha tester: add test cases for loose 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 loose positive and negative colocation rules, i.e. > where services should be kept on the same node together or kept separate > nodes. These are copies of their strict counterpart tests, but verify > the behavior if the colocation rule cannot be met, i.e. not adhering to > the colocation rule. The test scenarios are: > > - 2 neg. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 2 neg. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing, but the > recovery node cannot start the service > - 2 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> With the errors in the descriptions fixed: Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-loose-separate4/README b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-separate4/README Not sure it should be named the same number as the strict test just because it's adapted from that. > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5b68cde > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-separate4/README > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > +Test whether a loose negative colocation rule among two services makes one of > +the services migrate to a different recovery node than the other service in > +case of a failover of service's previously assigned node. As the service fails > +to start on the recovery node (e.g. insufficient resources), the failing > +service is kept on the recovery node. The description here is wrong. It will be started on a different node after the start failure. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101 and fa:120001 should be kept separate > +- vm:101 and fa:120001 are on node2 and node3 respectively > +- fa:120001 will fail to start on node1 > +- node1 has a higher service count than node2 to test the colocation rule is > + applied even though the scheduler would prefer the less utilized node > + > +Therefore, the expected outcome is: > +- As node3 fails, fa:120001 is migrated to node1 > +- fa:120001 will be relocated to another node, since it couldn't start on its > + initial recovery node ---snip 8<--- > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-loose-together1/README b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-together1/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..2f5aeec > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-together1/README > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > +Test whether a loose positive colocation rule makes two services migrate to > +the same recovery node in case of a failover of their previously assigned node. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101 and vm:102 should be kept together > +- vm:101 and vm:102 are both currently running on node3 > +- node1 and node2 have the same service count to test that the rule is applied > + even though it would be usually balanced between both remaining nodes > + > +Therefore, the expected outcome is: > +- As node3 fails, both services are migrated to node2 It's actually node1 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel