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 070A71FF13B for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:09:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CF27D1C93C; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:09:35 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:09:32 +0200 Message-Id: From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , Subject: Re: [PATCH cluster v2 4/8] add functions to determine warning level for high token timeouts X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260420164314.370023-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20260420164314.370023-5-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260420164314.370023-5-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776859685243 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 Message-ID-Hash: 6HQLM67JXN44D6CVSQDLQBIMI3O5YPPA X-Message-ID-Hash: 6HQLM67JXN44D6CVSQDLQBIMI3O5YPPA 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 6:43 PM CEST, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: [snip] > +sub calculate_membership_recovery_timeout { > + my ($totemcfg, $node_count) =3D @_; > + > + my $token_timeout =3D $totemcfg->{token} // 3000; > + my $token_coefficient =3D $totemcfg->{token_coefficient} // 650; > + > + my $expected_token_timeout =3D $token_timeout; > + if ($node_count > 2) { > + $expected_token_timeout +=3D ($node_count - 2) * $token_coeffici= ent; > + } > + > + my $expected_consensus_timeout =3D $totemcfg->{consensus} // $expect= ed_token_timeout * 1.2; > + return ($expected_token_timeout + $expected_consensus_timeout) / 100= 0.0; > +} > + > +sub get_timeout_warning_level { just noticed that it probably makes sense to also rename this function to `get_membership_recovery_timeout_warning_level`. Don't like the long name, but it makes it clearer which timeout this is about. > + my ($total_timeout_secs) =3D @_; > + > + if ($total_timeout_secs > 45) { > + return 'change-strongly-recommended'; > + } elsif ($total_timeout_secs > 40) { > + return 'change-recommended'; > + } elsif ($total_timeout_secs > 30) { > + return 'optimize'; > + } > + > + return undef; > +} > + > +sub get_timeout_warning { same as above, but as `get_membership_recovery_timeout_warning`. > + my ($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 recom= mended"; [snip]