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 EB6181FF165 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2025 12:12:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 085053C41; Thu, 24 Apr 2025 12:12:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <cab3e44f-1294-429d-8e06-b6743c3cb3a7@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 12:12:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> References: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.038 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC cluster/ha-manager 00/16] HA colocation rules 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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral: > | Canonicalization > ---------- > > Additionally, colocation rules are currently simplified as follows: > > - If there are multiple positive colocation rules with common services > and the same strictness, these are merged to a single positive > colocation rule. Do you intend to do that when writing the configuration file? I think rules are better left unmerged from a user perspective. For example: - services 1, 2 and 3 should strictly stay together, because of reason A - services 1 and 3 should strictly stay together, because of different reason B Another scenario might be that the user is currently in the process of editing some rules one-by-one and then it might also be surprising if something is auto-merged. You can of course always dynamically merge them when doing the computation for the node selection. In the same spirit, a comment field for each rule where the user can put the reason might be nice to have. Another question is if we should allow enabling/disabling rules. Comment and enabling can of course always be added later. I'm just not sure we should start out with the auto-merging of rules. > | Inference rules > ---------- > > There are currently no inference rules implemented for the RFC, but > there could be potential to further simplify some code paths in the > future, e.g. a positive colocation rule where one service is part of a > restricted HA group makes the other services in the positive colocation > rule a part of this HA group as well. If the rule is strict. If we do this I think it should only happen dynamically for the node selection too. > Comment about HA groups -> Location Rules > ----------------------------------------- > > This part is not really part of the patch series, but still worth for an > on-list discussion. > > I'd like to suggest to also transform the existing HA groups to location > rules, if the rule concept turns out to be a good fit for the colocation > feature in the HA Manager, as HA groups seem to integrate quite easily > into this concept. > > This would make service-node relationships a little more flexible for > users and we'd be able to have both configurable / visible in the same > WebUI view, API endpoint, and configuration file. Also, some code paths > could be a little more consise, e.g. checking changes to constraints and > canonicalizing the rules config. > > The how should be rather straightforward for the obvious use cases: > > - Services in unrestricted HA groups -> Location rules with the nodes of > the HA group; We could either split each node priority group into > separate location rules (with each having their score / weight) or > keep the input format of HA groups with a list of > `<node>(:<priority>)` in each rule > > - Services in restricted HA groups -> Same as above, but also using > either `+inf` for a mandatory location rule or `strict` property > depending on how we decide on the colocation rule properties I'd prefer having a 'strict' property, as that is orthogonal to the priorities and that aligns it with what you propose for the colocation rules. > This would allow most of the use cases of HA groups to be easily > migratable to location rules. We could also keep the inference of the > 'default group' for unrestricted HA groups (any node that is available > is added as a group member with priority -1). Nodes can change, so adding them explicitly will mean it can get outdated. This should be implicit/done dynamically. > The only thing that I'm unsure about this, is how we would migrate the > `nofailback` option, since this operates on the group-level. If we keep > the `<node>(:<priority>)` syntax and restrict that each service can only > be part of one location rule, it'd be easy to have the same flag. If we > go with multiple location rules per service and each having a score or > weight (for the priority), then we wouldn't be able to have this flag > anymore. I think we could keep the semantic if we move this flag to the > service config, but I'm thankful for any comments on this. My gut feeling is that going for a more direct mapping, i.e. each location rule represents one HA group, is better. The nofailback flag can still apply to a given location rule I think? For a given service, if a higher-priority node is online for any location rule the service is part of, with nofailback=0, it will get migrated to that higher-priority node. It does make sense to have a given service be part of only one location rule then though, since node priorities can conflict between rules. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel