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 2AE791FF137 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:16:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7CD6015652; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:17:01 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:16:25 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH ha-manager v3 35/40] implement automatic rebalancing From: "Dominik Rusovac" To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , "Daniel Kral" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260330144101.668747-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260330144101.668747-36-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774948530133 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.482 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: F6ADLIH65UGYOZSSEBBB46F2C5ZJ2FHL X-Message-ID-Hash: F6ADLIH65UGYOZSSEBBB46F2C5ZJ2FHL 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 Tue Mar 31, 2026 at 11:07 AM CEST, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: > 2 comments inline > > On Mon Mar 30, 2026 at 4:30 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > > [snip] > >> + my $candidates =3D $self->get_resource_migration_candidates(); >> + >> + my $result; >> + if ($method eq 'bruteforce') { >> + $result =3D $online_node_usage->select_best_balancing_migration= ($candidates); >> + } elsif ($method eq 'topsis') { >> + $result =3D $online_node_usage->select_best_balancing_migration= _topsis($candidates); >> + } >> + >> + # happens if $candidates is empty or $method isn't handled above >> + return if !$result; >> + >> + my ($migration, $target_imbalance) =3D $result->@{qw(migration imba= lance)}; >> + >> + my $relative_change =3D ($imbalance - $target_imbalance) / $imbalan= ce; > > Since you get $imbalance from a function that returns 0.0 for the case > that the cluster load is perfectly balanced (?), you could run into > division by 0 here, no? > technically this could happen, however an imbalance of 0.0 certainly should not exceed a threshold (this is the case that "the cluster load is perfectly balanced"); so the $relative_change ought to be never computed= =20 >> + return if $relative_change < $margin; >> + >> + my ($sid, $source, $target) =3D $migration->@{qw(sid source-node ta= rget-node)}; >> + >> + my (undef, $type, $id) =3D $haenv->parse_sid($sid); >> + my $task =3D $type eq 'vm' ? "migrate" : "relocate"; >> + my $cmd =3D "$task $sid $target"; >> + >> + my $target_imbalance_str =3D int(100 * $target_imbalance + 0.5) / 1= 00; >> + $haenv->log( >> + 'info', >> + "auto rebalance - $task $sid to $target (expected target imbala= nce: $target_imbalance_str)", >> + ); >> + >> + $self->queue_resource_motion($cmd, $task, $sid, $target); >> +} >> + [snip]