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 1D4B71FF15E for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:47:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1A71CF5FC; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:47:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <da02d0ab-0a99-4373-81c3-f60a48f6728b@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:47:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@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 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-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 3/25/25 16:12, Daniel Kral wrote: > Colocation Rules > ---------------- > > The two properties of colocation rules, as described in the > introduction, are rather straightforward. A typical colocation rule > inside of the config would look like the following: > > colocation: some-lonely-services > services vm:101,vm:103,ct:909 > affinity separate > strict 1 > > This means that the three services vm:101, vm:103 and ct:909 must be > kept separate on different nodes. I'm very keen on naming suggestions > since I think there could be a better word than 'affinity' here. I > played around with 'keep-services', since then it would always read > something like 'keep-services separate', which is very declarative, but > this might suggest that this is a binary option to too much users (I > mean it is, but not with the values 0 and 1). Just to document this, I've played around with using a score to decide whether the colocation rule is positive/negative, how strict and to allow specifying a value on how much it is desired to meet the colocation rule in case of an optional colocation rule, much like pacemaker's version. But in the end, I ditched the idea, since it didn't integrate well and it was also not trivial to find a good scale for this weight value that would correspond similarly as the node priority in HA groups, for example, especially when we select for each service individually. On 3/25/25 16:12, Daniel Kral wrote: > [0] https://clusterlabs.org/projects/pacemaker/doc/3.0/Pacemaker_Explained/html/constraints.html#colocation-properties > [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5260 > [2] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5332 > [3] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/c8fa7b8c-fb37-5389-1302-2002780d4ee2@proxmox.com/ I forgot to update the footnotes here when sending this. The first footnote was to the initial inspiration of a score-based colocation rule, but as already said this was dropped. So the references for the two quotes from our Bugzilla [0] and [1] map to the foot note [1] and [2] here respectively. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel