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 87C6D1FF137 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 13:35:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BA307CA9C; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 13:35:48 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 13:35:45 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Dominik Rusovac" To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , Subject: Re: [PATCH ha-manager 0/3] fix #2751: implement disarm/arm HA for safer cluster maintenance Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260309220128.973793-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260309220128.973793-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773750904527 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.361 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: BRHWYJ6JS5SIODE5WVSE3FJBZIFD2UEO X-Message-ID-Hash: BRHWYJ6JS5SIODE5WVSE3FJBZIFD2UEO X-MailFrom: d.rusovac@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: Thank you for digging this out!=20 On Mon Mar 9, 2026 at 10:57 PM CET, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: [snip] > TBD: > - more in-depth (real-world!) testing In a real cluster, consisting of: - node1 with 2 ha-resources; - node2 with 2 ha-resources; and - node3 with 0 ha-resources, the following has been tested: - with resource mode 'freeze': - CRM master takeover while HA stack is fully disarmed (OK) - new commands are not applied: (OK) - stop node (OK) - enable node-maintenance (OK) - disable node-maintenance (OK) NOTE: it is possible to disable node-maintenance in=20 disarmed state. The disable command is applied=20 upon re-arming, accordingly services are moved=20 back upon re-arming, could this be critical?=20 - relocate ha-resource (OK) - migrate ha-resource (OK) - state changes are not applied (OK) NOTE: it is possible to change the state, but the=20 change will only be applied upon re-arming - services stay in their current state (OK) - HA stack does not react to failures (OK) - stop some node (OK) - with resource mode 'ignore': - manually starting, stopping, migrating services (OK) > - UI integration I started drafting something. UI integration requires protected endpoints. > - docs (got something started here, but can be finished once this is [snip] I found no major flaws, neither in the present approach nor in the implementation. Just some minor things, constituted by inline comments across this series' patches. Consider this series modulo:=20 - prohibit disarming with resource mode 'ignore' if at least one node is in maintenance mode - make endpoints protected Reviewed-by: Dominik Rusovac Tested-by: Dominik Rusovac