Am 25.03.25 um 17:47 schrieb Daniel Kral: > 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.
The node priority for HA groups is not a weight, but an ordering. In any case, such a weight for colocation could still be added on top later if we really want to. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
