From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE8641FF13C for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 08:38:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6F29211D74; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 08:38:43 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 08:38:37 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [RFC ha-manager 16/21] sim: hardware: add set-dynamic-stats for services From: "Dominik Rusovac" To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , , "Daniel Kral" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260217141437.584852-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260217141437.584852-30-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260318165820.81517-4-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260318165820.81517-4-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773905875163 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.712 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.408 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.819 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.903 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: MD6O25BEC2DQQCRV6HXAG3AVNSL7466C X-Message-ID-Hash: MD6O25BEC2DQQCRV6HXAG3AVNSL7466C 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: On Wed Mar 18, 2026 at 5:54 PM CET, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2026, Daniel Kral wrote: >> --- a/src/PVE/HA/Sim/Hardware.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Sim/Hardware.pm >> @@ -213,6 +216,25 @@ sub set_static_service_stats { >> [...] >> + if (my $memory =3D $new_stats->{mem}) { >> + $stats->{$sid}->{mem} =3D $memory; >> + } >> + >> + if (my $cpu =3D $new_stats->{cpu}) { > > Note that above will skip a value of 0 or 0.0 since those are falsy. > Setting a service's CPU to 0.0 (idle) can be valid though? > If, rather check with if (defined(my $cpu =3D ...)) { instead. > Similar issue with `die ... if !$val` in the command handler. Good catch, thx! Indeed 0 or 0.0 should be valid. > >> + die "overcommitted cpu on '$sid'" >> + if $stats->{$sid}->{cpu} > $stats->{$sid}->{maxcpu}; > > The overcommit dies are quite strict for a simulator and AFAICT prevent > testing overcommitted scenarios, which are common in real clusters. Eventually, instead of dying, adding a log on warn for this is a better ide= a?