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 941DB1FF183 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CD5FC9634; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:06:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:05:42 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Daniel Kral" To: "Shannon Sterz" , "Proxmox VE development discussion" Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20250704182102.467624-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250704182102.467624-15-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753869931746 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.014 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 docs v3 1/1] ha: add documentation about ha resource affinity rules 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Tue Jul 8, 2025 at 6:08 PM CEST, Shannon Sterz wrote: > On Fri Jul 4, 2025 at 8:20 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: >> [[ha_manager_rule_conflicts]] >> Rule Conflicts and Errors >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> @@ -774,6 +860,43 @@ Currently, HA rules are checked for the following feasibility tests: >> total. If two or more HA node affinity rules specify the same HA resource, >> these HA node affinity rules will be disabled. >> >> +* A HA resource affinity rule must specify at least two HA resources to be >> + feasible. If a HA resource affinity rule does specify only one HA resource, > > nit: get rid of the "does" it makes this already very long and hard to > parse sentence ven hader to read. ACK this and all the other inline comments. I didn't find the time to find better words to describe these properties, but I'll happily accept any suggestions for improvements. My hope is that most of them (which are not constrainted by the implementation but the nature of the problem) are intuitive enough without reading the documentation (for example: cannot keep 2+ ha resources together and separate at the same time) so that users will either not run into them that often or the error messages make it clear enough. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel