From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E181FF165
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:03:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 55EA218C89;
Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:03:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <a9600f14-ffe7-4fd6-9ce5-d8478ac4dbd4@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:02:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250116163055.2619572-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<17363828-136f-4f85-ad41-3a34b1a56689@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <17363828-136f-4f85-ad41-3a34b1a56689@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.034 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]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] pvestatd: improve broadcast of node
version-info
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 2025-01-17 13:18, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 16.01.25 um 17:30 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
>> Until now, the pvestatd did broadcast the pve-manager version only once
>> after startup of the service. But there are some situations, where the
>> local pmxcfs (pve-cluster) restarts and loses that information.
>> Basically everytime we restart the pmxcfs without restarting pvestatd
>> too.
>>
>> For example, on a cluster join, or if the pmxcfs has been restarted
>> manually.
>>
>> By additionally checking if the local kv-store of the pmxcfs has any
>> version info for the node, we can decide if another broadcast is
>> necessary.
>> Therefore after the next run of pvestatd, we should have the full
>> version info available again.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> This patch is preparation to get reliable version infos as I am picking
>> of the patch series of Folke to include more metrics into the RRD data
>> and summary graphs. [0]
>> This was a big blocker and now with the major version change coming up,
>> we at least can assume the latest 8.x installed as part of the update to
>> PVE 9.
>> Therefore, we should get this in with PVE 8. Additional patches for PVE
>> 8 will follow to make the transition smoother. But as mentioned, this
>> here is one of the things that needs to work reliably, which is why I
>> submit the patch already now.
>
> If we start relying more on this, we likely also want:
> https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20221006125414.58279-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com/
Hmm, honestly, I might prefer having the last known version info still
present. That would make it easier to determine if all cluster nodes are
on at least a required version ;).
But I think it would be better, with RRD data migration in mind, to make
it mandatory that all cluster nodes are online before one can proceed
instead of relying on stale version infos.
>
>>
>> [0] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20231211144721.212071-1-f.gleumes@proxmox.com/
>>
>> PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm b/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm
>> index 7fa003fe..03c578e1 100755
>> --- a/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm
>> @@ -527,7 +527,10 @@ sub update_sdn_status {
>>
>> my $broadcast_version_info_done = 0;
>> my sub broadcast_version_info : prototype() {
>> - if (!$broadcast_version_info_done) {
>> + if (
>> + !$broadcast_version_info_done
>> + || !keys PVE::Cluster::get_node_kv('version-info', $nodename)->%*
>
> Style nit: IMHO, it would be easier to read if surrounded by an explicit
> scalar()
You mean to have it like this?
| !scaler(keys PVE::Cluster::get_node_kv('version-info', $nodename)->%*)
>
>> + ) {
>> PVE::Cluster::broadcast_node_kv(
>> 'version-info',
>> encode_json(PVE::pvecfg::version_info()),
>
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel