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 8599F1FF13F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 17:20:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B9C631A7CD; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 17:20:51 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 17:20:12 +0100 Message-Id: To: "Jillian Morgan" Subject: Re: [PATCH cluster v2 19/40] datacenter config: add auto rebalancing options From: "Daniel Kral" X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-38-g7088c3642f2c-dirty References: <20260324183029.1274972-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260324183029.1274972-20-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774541963398 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.056 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 0.001 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 0.001 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 0.001 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: S4IXJ7DQQGOMLPWCK7VSSXAN3UX44WOI X-Message-ID-Hash: S4IXJ7DQQGOMLPWCK7VSSXAN3UX44WOI X-MailFrom: d.kral@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 CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com 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 Thu Mar 26, 2026 at 5:08 PM CET, Jillian Morgan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 2:34=E2=80=AFPM Daniel Kral = wrote: > >> + 'ha-auto-rebalance-hold-duration' =3D> { >> + type =3D> 'number', >> + optional =3D> 1, >> + default =3D> 3, >> + requires =3D> 'ha-auto-rebalance', >> + description =3D> "The duration the threshold must be exceeded f= or >> to trigger an automatic" >> + . " resource balancing migration in HA rounds.", >> + }, >> >> > What are the units of these duration numbers? Miliseconds or days? ;-) > Perhaps it is the "HA rounds" part that is key here but the statement is > unclear to me. Is that a duration, or a discrete number of events? How lo= ng > is each "HA round"? > > Perhaps a clarification like this: "The number of HA Rounds for which > the ha-auto-rebalance-threshold must be exceeded before triggering an > automatic resource balancing migration." > And perhaps an additional hint could be provided that an HA Round is "10 > seconds" (I think?) Hi Jillian! Thanks for taking a look! You're right, there should be more emphasis on the 'HA rounds' part! I thought about using seconds in v1, but I went with the HA rounds as in 'number of repeated tries' as that measure is a better guarantee. Putting "The number of HA rounds" at the start makes the 'unit' for this property also clearer, will change it to that and add a hint about the length of the HA rounds. Best regards Daniel