From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 617D91FF0E1 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A9612144C; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:44:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:44:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: David Riley Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v2 10/12] ha-manager: rules: improve resource affinity rule short description To: Daniel Kral , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260602100226.180071-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260602100226.180071-11-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20260602100226.180071-11-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783946628318 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.260 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust 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: DOY2ZHQGSAEKLNF7O32GONCE3NCSC3O6 X-Message-ID-Hash: DOY2ZHQGSAEKLNF7O32GONCE3NCSC3O6 X-MailFrom: d.riley@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: Looks good to me. consider this: Reviewed-by: David Riley On 6/2/26 12:02 PM, Daniel Kral wrote: > For conciseness, make the following improvements to the resource > affinity rule short description in a single patch: > > - Add newline to separate most important information from additional > nice-to-have information. > - Use the same order of affinity types as in the separate "Resource > affinity rules" section. > - Use the word 'must' to highlight that resource affinity rules are > currently always strict. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral > --- > changes since v1: > - new > > ha-manager.adoc | 9 +++++---- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ha-manager.adoc b/ha-manager.adoc > index d34916e..479b539 100644 > --- a/ha-manager.adoc > +++ b/ha-manager.adoc > @@ -709,10 +709,11 @@ include::generated/ha-rules-opts.adoc[] > | HA Rule Type | Description > | `node-affinity` | Places affinity from one or more HA resources to one or > more nodes. > -| `resource-affinity` | Places affinity between two or more HA resources. The > -affinity `negative` specifies that HA resources are to be kept on separate > -nodes, while the affinity `positive` specifies that HA resources are to be kept > -on the same node. > +| `resource-affinity` | Places affinity between two or more HA resources. > + > +The affinity `positive` specifies that HA resources must be kept on the same > +node, while the affinity `negative` specifies that HA resources must be kept on > +separate nodes. > |=========================================================== > > [[ha_manager_node_affinity_rules]]