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 7A3021FF16F for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:07:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8C9BF7777; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:07:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <ce9a801d-c28b-4480-a402-488448836a1f@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:07:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250325151254.193177-11-d.kral@proxmox.com> <1743681290.ng3l34qeu2.astroid@yuna.none> <99311daa-b736-4591-a134-094579132c1c@proxmox.com> <5f66e849-66b7-4ba4-a8d4-e4172a4f5055@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <5f66e849-66b7-4ba4-a8d4-e4172a4f5055@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.012 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] [PATCH ha-manager 09/15] manager: apply colocation rules when selecting service nodes 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 4/28/25 14:46, Fiona Ebner wrote: > I feel like we should trigger auto-migration for strict colocation > rules. I.e. apply the rules earlier in select_service_node(), before the > "keep current node" early return. > > With nofailback=0, we do not keep the current node when node priorities > change for HA groups or the service's group changes, so it feels > consistent to do the same for colocation rules. We'll need to be careful > not to get a "both services now migrate towards each other" switch-up > scenario of course. What scenario would that be? Or do you mean just disallowing migrating services contradicting the HA (colocation) rules? > > We also don't hinder migrating against group priorities, where, with > nofailback=0, it will migrate straight back again. This can be improved > of course, but nothing new, so I'd consider it orthogonal to the > colocation implementation here. Yes, it would improve UX to add migration blockers for these in the future as the info could be exposed there without putting too much dependency between pve-manager and pve-ha-manager. I'll try to add the blockers for colocation rules for v1 or a follow-up. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel