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 8AD121FF164 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 May 2025 13:21:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2231C3B7A3; Fri, 9 May 2025 13:22:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9378616f-22c7-49a9-8e76-4383a5c318b9@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 13:22:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250325151254.193177-14-d.kral@proxmox.com> <2feb8499-0dfa-4a28-810a-45a1db3e436d@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <2feb8499-0dfa-4a28-810a-45a1db3e436d@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.012 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 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 4/28/25 15:51, Fiona Ebner wrote: > 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: ACK > >> 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. Right, I'll simplify the description and test case in general as it doesn't need the same requirements as the strict negative counterpart. I'll make it clearer / correct it in the next revision. > >> 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. Thanks, I will! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel