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 BAAC11FF13B for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:05:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 90B531C650; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:05:13 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:05:06 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Lukas Sichert" , =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , Subject: Re: [PATCH cluster v2 4/8] add functions to determine warning level for high token timeouts From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260420164314.370023-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20260420164314.370023-5-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776859418978 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.099 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Message-ID-Hash: G6F3UOWR6J5FWQGNVMC35SPCIV6QSI4M X-Message-ID-Hash: G6F3UOWR6J5FWQGNVMC35SPCIV6QSI4M 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 Wed Apr 22, 2026 at 1:40 PM CEST, Lukas Sichert wrote: [snip] >> +sub get_timeout_warning { >> + my ($total_timeout_secs) =3D @_; >> + >> + my $level =3D get_timeout_warning_level($total_timeout_secs); >> + return undef if !defined($level); >> + >> + my $level_msg; >> + if ($level eq 'change-strongly-recommended') { >> + $level_msg =3D "Changing the token coefficient is strongly reco= mmended"; > In my opinion, "lowering" would be clearer than "changing" here, because = this warning is only emitted when the timeout is too high. Unless @Friedrich or someone else has a strong opinion on this, I'd also prefer lowering, I think, and I'd adapt v3 accordingly. Thanks for the suggestion. >> + } elsif ($level eq 'change-recommended') { >> + $level_msg =3D "Changing the token coefficient is recommended"; >> + } elsif ($level eq 'optimize') { >> + $level_msg =3D "Token coefficient can be optimized"; >> + } >> + >> + return >> + "Sum of Corosync token and consensus timeout is ${total_timeout= _secs}s. " >> + . "$level_msg. " >> + . "See https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-pvecm.html#_cha= nging_the_token_coefficient for details."; > Maybe it would be better to avoid hardcoding the 'pve.proxmox.com' URL, b= ut to derive the URL from '/etc/hosts' or use ':8006' instead. I must've missed this when I rebased. Should have been "See 'man pvecm' for details" already. Will adapt in v3, thanks! >> +} >> + >> 1; >> --=20 >> 2.47.3