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 CD16D1FF13A for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:26:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E5B9225CB; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:26:29 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:26:25 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-ha-manager 4/7] test: re-adjust logged imbalance values From: "Dominik Rusovac" To: "Daniel Kral" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260427132031.220468-1-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> <20260427132031.220468-5-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777451088631 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.424 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: U2BJDVXCZ6VORAZUG2DZ24TMJ3VGEUZM X-Message-ID-Hash: U2BJDVXCZ6VORAZUG2DZ24TMJ3VGEUZM 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 Apr 28, 2026 at 10:52 AM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > On Mon Apr 27, 2026 at 3:20 PM CEST, Dominik Rusovac wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Rusovac >> --- > > This patch should have some commentary in its patch notes why these > values change and why this causes some of the test cases to reduce the > amount of balancing migrations and include the reason in the patch > summary (subject). ack, will change in v2=20 > > AFAICT it's already nice to see here that the selected migrations are > the same, but because of the default imbalance threshold some of the > previously done balancing migrations are cut. > > Might be a discussion point to lower the default imbalance threshold > value to roughly the mapped value or if it still is a good default value > for most systems, but that needs more evaluation and is besides this > patch.