Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral: > Add test cases for loose positive and negative colocation rules, i.e. > where services should be kept on the same node together or kept separate > nodes. These are copies of their strict counterpart tests, but verify > the behavior if the colocation rule cannot be met, i.e. not adhering to > the colocation rule. The test scenarios are: > > - 2 neg. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing > - 2 neg. colocated services in a 3 node cluster; 1 node failing, but the > recovery node cannot start the service > - 2 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>
With the errors in the descriptions fixed: Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.eb...@proxmox.com> > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-loose-separate4/README > b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-separate4/README Not sure it should be named the same number as the strict test just because it's adapted from that. > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5b68cde > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-separate4/README > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > +Test whether a loose negative colocation rule among two services makes one of > +the services migrate to a different recovery node than the other service in > +case of a failover of service's previously assigned node. As the service > fails > +to start on the recovery node (e.g. insufficient resources), the failing > +service is kept on the recovery node. The description here is wrong. It will be started on a different node after the start failure. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101 and fa:120001 should be kept separate > +- vm:101 and fa:120001 are on node2 and node3 respectively > +- fa:120001 will fail to start on node1 > +- node1 has a higher service count than node2 to test the colocation rule is > + applied even though the scheduler would prefer the less utilized node > + > +Therefore, the expected outcome is: > +- As node3 fails, fa:120001 is migrated to node1 > +- fa:120001 will be relocated to another node, since it couldn't start on its > + initial recovery node ---snip 8<--- > diff --git a/src/test/test-colocation-loose-together1/README > b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-together1/README > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..2f5aeec > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/test/test-colocation-loose-together1/README > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > +Test whether a loose positive colocation rule makes two services migrate to > +the same recovery node in case of a failover of their previously assigned > node. > + > +The test scenario is: > +- vm:101 and vm:102 should be kept together > +- vm:101 and vm:102 are both currently running on node3 > +- node1 and node2 have the same service count to test that the rule is > applied > + even though it would be usually balanced between both remaining nodes > + > +Therefore, the expected outcome is: > +- As node3 fails, both services are migrated to node2 It's actually node1 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
