From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 273D188CE for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:37:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02A741CEE3 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:37:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:37:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1310044B58 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:37:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <82c69808-1032-ff32-1d23-ceacdc0a11eb@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:37:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20221110143800.98047-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20221110143800.98047-19-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <5aa83262-a8f4-8f8e-0612-55fbf9cfd7d9@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL 0.028 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict =?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF =?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager 09/11] manager: use static resource scheduler when configured X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:37:50 -0000 Am 16.11.22 um 08:14 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 11/11/2022 um 10:28 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >> Am 10.11.22 um 15:37 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >>> @@ -206,11 +207,30 @@ my $valid_service_states = { >>> sub recompute_online_node_usage { >> So I was a bit worried that recompute_online_node_usage() would become >> too inefficient with the new add_service_usage_to_node() overhead from >> needing to read the guest configs. I now tested it with ~300 HA services >> (minimal containers) running on my virtual test cluster. >> >> Timings with 'basic' mode were between 0.0004 - 0.001 seconds >> Timings with 'static' mode were between 0.007 - 0.012 seconds >> >> While about a 10-fold increase, it's not too dramatic at least. I guess >> that's what the caching of cfs files is for :) >> >> Still, the function is currently not only called in the main loop in >> manage(), but also in next_state_recovery() and change_service_state(). >> >> With, say, 400 HA services each on 5 nodes, if a node fails there's >> 400 calls from changing to freeze > > huh, freeze should only happen on graceful shutdown of a node, not > if it fails? Sorry, I meant fence not freeze. > >> 400 calls from changing to recovery >> 400 calls in next_state_recovery >> 400 calls from changing to started >> If we take a generous estimate that each call takes 0.1 seconds (there's >> 2000 services in total), that's 40+80+40 seconds in 3 bursts during the >> fencing and recovery period. > > doesn't that lead to overly long run windows between watchdog updates? > >> >> Is that acceptable? Should I try to optimize how often the function is >> called? >> > > hmm, a quick look wouldn't hurt, but not required for now IMO - if it can > interfere with watchdog updates I'd sneak in updating it once in between > though. > Yes, from a quick look that might become a problem, exactly because the delays happen in bursts (all services change state in a single manage() run). Not sure how you would trigger the update, because that would need to happen in the CRM AFAIU? There is a fixme comment in CRM.pm's work() to set an alert timer and enforce working for at most $max_time seconds. That would of course help here. Getting rid of superfluous recompute_online_node_usage() calls should also not be impossible. We'd need to ensure that we add service usage (that already is done in recovery and next_state_started) and remove service usage (removing is not implemented right now) when changing nodes or states. Then it'd be enough to call recompute_online_node_usage() once per cycle and it'd be a huge improvement compared to now. Additionally, we could call it whenever we iterated a certain number of services, just to be sure. > > ps. maybe you can have some of that info/stats here in the commit message > of this patch. Sure.