From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4DAC9A742 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:31:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B0ECF32B7E for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:31:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:31:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DD40543DE9 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:31:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:31:03 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Friedrich Weber Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: References: <20230126083214.711099-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.100 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC manager/container/qemu-server/guest-common 0/4] fix #4474: stop tasks may overrule shutdown tasks X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:31:34 -0000 On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:04:26AM +0200, Friedrich Weber wrote: > Lost track of this a bit, reviving due to user interest [1]. > > As the series does not apply anymore, I'll send a new version in any > case, but wanted to ask for feedback before I do. > > My questions from the cover letter still apply: > > On 26/01/2023 09:32, Friedrich Weber wrote: > > * Does it make sense to have overruling optional? Or should "stop" > > generally overrule shutdown? This might lead to confusing > > interactions, as Thomas noted [0]. Although whenever I ran into that I had simply misclicked shutdown or became impatient. I never had any automated shutdown tasks happen. Yet I still feel like this should be optional ;-) (I usually just ended up using `qm stop` on the cli :P) > > * Backend: Is there a more elegant way to overrule shutdown tasks, > > and a better place than pve-guest-common? > > * Frontend: When stopping a VM/CT, we already ask for confirmation. > > Is an (occasional) second modal dialog with a lot of text a good user > > experience? Alternatively, I could imagine a checkbox in the first > > dialog saying "Overrule any active shutdown tasks". > > Actually I don't really like the second modal dialog. What about the > following: When the user clicks "Stop" and the frontend detects an > active shutdown task, the already-existing "Confirm" dialog has an > additional default-off checkbox "Kill active shutdown tasks" (or > similar). This way the default behavior does not change, but users do > not have to kill active shutdown tasks manually anymore. Sounds good to me. But maybe don't use the word "kill" 😄 "Replace/Override" should work. > > > * This patch series forbids `overrule-shutdown=1` for HA-managed VMs/CTs > > because I didn't know how overruling should work in a HA setting. Do > > you have any suggestions? I think it's okay to disable this for now.