On February 27, 2025 9:59 am, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 26.02.25 um 17:02 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >> >> >> On 2025-01-17 13:18, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> Am 16.01.25 um 17:30 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >>>> Until now, the pvestatd did broadcast the pve-manager version only once >>>> after startup of the service. But there are some situations, where the >>>> local pmxcfs (pve-cluster) restarts and loses that information. >>>> Basically everytime we restart the pmxcfs without restarting pvestatd >>>> too. >>>> >>>> For example, on a cluster join, or if the pmxcfs has been restarted >>>> manually. >>>> >>>> By additionally checking if the local kv-store of the pmxcfs has any >>>> version info for the node, we can decide if another broadcast is >>>> necessary. >>>> Therefore after the next run of pvestatd, we should have the full >>>> version info available again. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.laute...@proxmox.com> >>>> --- >>>> This patch is preparation to get reliable version infos as I am picking >>>> of the patch series of Folke to include more metrics into the RRD data >>>> and summary graphs. [0] >>>> This was a big blocker and now with the major version change coming up, >>>> we at least can assume the latest 8.x installed as part of the update to >>>> PVE 9. >>>> Therefore, we should get this in with PVE 8. Additional patches for PVE >>>> 8 will follow to make the transition smoother. But as mentioned, this >>>> here is one of the things that needs to work reliably, which is why I >>>> submit the patch already now. >>> >>> If we start relying more on this, we likely also want: >>> https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20221006125414.58279-1- >>> f.eb...@proxmox.com/ >> >> Hmm, honestly, I might prefer having the last known version info still >> present. That would make it easier to determine if all cluster nodes are >> on at least a required version ;). > > That is an edge case where it might be useful, but I'd argue that in > general, it can be problematic to rely on stale information, especially > if you can't detect if it's stale or not. And IMHO, it's worth doing > properly here too, i.e. wait for the node to send its current version. > You already need to wait for nodes that were not online before.
we could make it detectable by including a timestamp? that way, if using stale information is (not) okay, that decision can be made by the consumer of the information, instead of only allowing either variant? _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
