Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/3] qemu: create: add checkbox for creating HA resource upon VM creation

["Michael Köppl" <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>]

On Tue Oct 7, 2025 at 12:26 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 07.10.25 um 11:52 schrieb Michael Köppl:
>> On Mon Oct 6, 2025 at 7:29 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> Am 06.10.25 um 17:52 schrieb Michael Köppl:
>>>> The new checkbox allows users to create a HA resource for the VM right
>>>> away. The 'state' of the HA resource will match the value of the "Start
>>>> after creation" checkbox.
>>>
>>> The idea for the start-after-create is that it's only affecting
>>> run state, but no config and is often decided last, that's why I
>>> put that flag in the docked section of the wizard.
>>>
>>> Adding to HA affects a config, not just runtime state, and it
>>> probably is often decided upfront if a guest should be HA or
>>> not; so that option *might* better fit into the general section,
>>> would also avoid making the docked section to crowded.
>>>
>>> And then it might be also nice to show "HA Managed: Yes" in the
>>> summary grid of the confirmation step.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Thanks for the feedback! I'm a bit conflicted regarding this one. The
>> reason I thought it might fit better into the Confirm section is that,
>> while it does affect *a* config, it does not affect the config of the
>> VM/CT (and I don't think it should). That's also why I thought
>> displaying the value of ha-managed in the summary grid might be a bit
>> misleading, since this value will not be in the VM's/CT's config. But
>> it might also be that my mental model of this dialog is too strict in
>> assuming that everything that comes before the Confirm step is strictly
>> related to the config of the guest?
>
> While it might not end up in the guest config directly, for one we still
> show the HA status in the guest summary panel and having HA enabled changes
> start/stop/migrate/.. behavior, i.e. it's an essential part of the guest.
> For another, there already is a pre-existing key that is similar, i.e. the
> nodename. The node won't get into the config, but we allow selection for
> it in the general settings page and we also show it in the summary for
> the create configuration (which we do not name "config summary" or the
> like), as it's also central part of the guest and can affect the guest
> and the resources available to it, again unlike a single one time action
> like "start after creation". VMID is also similar, as is the resource
> pool, so I there already a few exceptions to much here as for that this
> has to be strictly considered as "summary for what will be saved into
> the guest config directly".

I understand, thanks for the detailed insight!

>
>> I would of course be open to moving the checkbox, just wanted to provide
>> some rationale for why I put it there. If I moved it, I think it would
>> make sense to move it to the Advanced section of the General tab?
>
> For now it could indeed live in the advanced section, but HA is central
> enough that it also could be fine to add it to the standard section;
> but no hard feelings here, especially as this is easier to change
> without "disruption" of usage patterns from the users POV, as e.g. moving
> it from advanced to the standard section would still keep the setting on
> the same page in any case.

Ack, I'll send a v2 with just the pve-manager patches. Thanks again for
the feedback!


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel