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 5CA6A1FF17A
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:43:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0B5743A917;
Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:44:11 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <f82ae0b8-0dbe-497e-8cbd-c7c2f6a7a9c6@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:43:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
References: <20250620143148.218469-1-d.kral@proxmox.com>
<20250620143148.218469-11-d.kral@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250620143148.218469-11-d.kral@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.015 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] [PATCH ha-manager v2 06/26] rules: add global
checks between location and 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>
On 6/20/25 16:31, Daniel Kral wrote:
> Add checks, which determine infeasible colocation rules, because their
> services are already restricted by their location rules in such a way,
> that these cannot be satisfied or are reasonable to be proven to be
> satisfiable.
>
> Positive colocation rule services need to have at least one common node
> to be feasible and negative colocation rule services need to have at
> least the amount of nodes available that nodes are restricted to in
> total, i.e. services that are in strict location rules.
>
> Since location rules allow nodes to be put in priority groups, but the
> information which priority group is relevant depends on the online
> nodes, these checks currently prohibit colocation rules with services,
> which make use of these kinds of location rules.
>
> Even though location rules are restricted to only allow a service to be
> used in a single location rule, the checks here still go over all
> location rules, as this restriction is bound to be changed in the
> future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
> ---
> changes since v1:
> - moved global checks from Colocation plugin to base plugin
> - add check to only allow colocation rules for services which are in
> single-priority location rules / ha groups because these are quite
> stateful and cannot be easily verified to be possible
>
> src/PVE/HA/Rules.pm | 189 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 189 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Rules.pm b/src/PVE/HA/Rules.pm
> index 4134283..588e53b 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/HA/Rules.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Rules.pm
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ package PVE::HA::Rules;
> use strict;
> use warnings;
>
> +use PVE::HashTools;
> use PVE::JSONSchema qw(get_standard_option);
> use PVE::Tools;
>
> @@ -469,4 +470,192 @@ sub foreach_rule : prototype($$;$) {
> }
> }
>
> +=head1 INTER-PLUGIN RULE CHECKERS
> +
> +=cut
> +
> +=head3 check_single_priority_location_for_colocated_services($location_rules, $colocation_rules)
> +
> +Returns a list of colocation rule ids defined in C<$colocation_rules>, where
> +the services in the colocation rule are in location rules, defined in
> +C<$location_rules>, which have multiple priority groups defined. That is, the
> +colocation rule cannot be statically checked to be feasible as the selection of
> +the priority group is dependent on the currently online nodes.
Might be that I'm misinterpreting this, but doesn't that only apply when
the location rule contains more than 1 node? At the moment, this check
would fail if I have location rules vm:100->node1 and vm:101->node2,
either of them has a priority assigned and I then try to add a
colocation rule that separates them. This would be possible without the
priority assigned.
> +
> +If there are none, the returned list is empty.
> +
> +=cut
> +
> +sub check_single_priority_location_for_colocated_services {
> + my ($colocation_rules, $location_rules) = @_;
> +
> + my @errors = ();
> +
> + while (my ($colocationid, $colocation_rule) = each %$colocation_rules) {
> + my $priority;
> + my $services = $colocation_rule->{services};
> +
> + for my $locationid (keys %$location_rules) {
> + my $location_rule = $location_rules->{$locationid};
> +
> + next if PVE::HashTools::sets_are_disjoint($services, $location_rule->{services});
> +
> + for my $node (values %{ $location_rule->{nodes} }) {
> + $priority = $node->{priority} if !defined($priority);
> +
> + if ($priority != $node->{priority}) {
> + push @errors, $colocationid;
> + last; # early return to check next colocation rule
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel