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 C90F21FF136 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:51:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6679E2D31; Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:51:16 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:50:42 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH cluster 1/5] add functions to determine warning level for high token timeouts From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Friedrich Weber" , =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260330144321.321072-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20260330144321.321072-2-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <28480320-ef59-462d-aecc-6a713ee3028b@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <28480320-ef59-462d-aecc-6a713ee3028b@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776692958791 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.102 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: TLOY2ONAHB7OPT5LT2RG2VJFHLCFWDDD X-Message-ID-Hash: TLOY2ONAHB7OPT5LT2RG2VJFHLCFWDDD X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@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 Mon Apr 20, 2026 at 11:39 AM CEST, Friedrich Weber wrote: > On 20/04/2026 10:26, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: >> On Fri Apr 17, 2026 at 10:33 AM CEST, Friedrich Weber wrote: >>=20 >> [snip] >>=20 >>>> >>>> +sub calculate_total_timeout { >>> >>> I think "total timeout" is a little too vague, especially because it's >>> also user-facing. I don't think totem/corosync have a term for "sum of >>> token and consensus timeout", and "sum of token and consensus timeout" >>> is a too long. Perhaps something like "recovery timeout" -- though not >>> perfect because "Recovery" is a specific state in the totem state >>> machine. Maybe "membership convergence timeout" (though that's a bit >>> long and obscure)? >>=20 >> Thanks for having a look at this and for your feedback. I agree that the >> naming is a bit too vague, though I really wasn't sure what else to name >> it. I think calculate_membership_convergence_timeout could work. As an >> alternative suggestion, what do you think of >> calculate_cluster_reformation_timeout? Of course that's also a more >> "verbose" name, but I think it describes the effects of the timeout >> quite well. > > Hm, "Reformation" reads a bit weird to me. Perhaps "recovery" is not so > bad after all (a bit less esoteric than convergence or reformation), > what about "membership recovery timeout"? The "membership" qualifier > should make it reasonably clear that it's not the same as totem's > "recovery" state. I'll go with calculate_membership_recovery_timeout then. I think it makes it a lot clearer what this timeout actually is. Thanks!