Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral: > Add test cases for strict positive colocation rules, i.e. where services > must be kept on the same node together. These verify the behavior of the > services in strict positive colocation rules in case of a failover of > their assigned nodes in the following scenarios: > > - 2 pos. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 3 pos. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 3 pos. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing, but the > recovery node cannot start one of the services > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.k...@proxmox.com>
Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.eb...@proxmox.com> Again minor nits with the descriptions: > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together2/README > b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together2/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..c1abf68 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together2/README > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > +Test whether a strict positive colocation rule makes three services migrate > to > +the same recovery node in case of a failover of their previously assigned > node. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 must be kept together > +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 are all currently running on node3 > +- node1 has a higher service count than node2 to test that the rule is > applied > + even though it would be usually balanced between both remaining nodes Nit: The balancing would also happen if the service count would be the same on the two nodes, the sentence makes it sound like that it's a requirement for this test. > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together3/README > b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together3/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5332696 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-strict-together3/README > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > +Test whether a strict positive colocation rule makes three services migrate > to > +the same recovery node in case of a failover of their previously assigned > node. > +If one of those fail to start on the recovery node (e.g. insufficient > +resources), the failing service will be kept on the recovery node. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101, vm:102, and fa:120002 must be kept together > +- vm:101, vm:102, and fa:120002 are all currently running on node3 > +- fa:120002 will fail to start on node2 > +- node1 has a higher service count than node2 to test that the rule is > applied > + even though it would be usually balanced between both remaining nodes Nit: The balancing would also happen if the service count would be the same on the two nodes, the sentence makes it sound like that it's a requirement for this test. You do need it since the failure for the 'fa' service will happen on node 2 however, so you should mention that instead. > + > +Therefore, the expected outcome is: > +- As node3 fails, all services are migrated to node2 > +- Two of those services will start successfully, but fa:120002 will stay in > + recovery, since it cannot be started on this node, but cannot be relocated > to > + another one either due to the strict colocation rule _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
