From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0F851FF139 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:22:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AB8608DED; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:23:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7dc9c2c9-e355-4a40-a00f-abdd9c81b9e2@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:22:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH-SERIES ha-manager 0/2] Negative Node Affinity Rules To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Daniel Kral References: <20251219133643.295514-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20251219133643.295514-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1771935760167 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: C6XIJQWOFWS36WCYSLKUALFL46MFMWY6 X-Message-ID-Hash: C6XIJQWOFWS36WCYSLKUALFL46MFMWY6 X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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 List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 19.12.25 um 2:36 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: > For larger HA clusters, specifying the nodes in simple* node affinity > rules as opt-out (negative) instead of opt-in (positive) can make the > rule set easier to follow and implement by users. > > * simple = without priority groups > > > There's no web interface integration yet, because I'm not entirely sure > yet how to integrate it with the concept of priority groups for positive > node affinity rules, which do not make sense in this context as the > specified nodes will be removed from the effective node set. Wouldn't it be enough to not use/show the priority column when the affinity is negative? If people need both, to exclude certain nodes and to prioritize certain others, they can use two rules: 1. a negative node affinity rule 2. a non-strict positive node affinity rule with priorities > As the conversion is pretty straightforward, we could even allow users > to convert between positive and negative node affinity rules (e.g. when > switching the affinity type in the web interface?). Limited to those without priorities I suppose ;)