Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral:
> diff --git a/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc1/README
> b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc1/README
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..c709f45
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc1/README
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +Test whether a mixed set of strict colocation rules in conjunction with the
> +static load scheduler with auto-rebalancing are applied correctly on service
> +start enabled and in case of a subsequent failover.
> +
> +The test scenario is:
> +- vm:101 and vm:102 are non-colocated services
> +- Services that must be kept together:
> + - vm:102, and vm:107
Even if going for serial commas, AFAIK it's not allowed when there's
only two items listed.
> + - vm:104, vm:106, and vm:108
> +- Services that must be kept separate:
> + - vm:103, vm:104, and vm:105
> + - vm:103, vm:106, and vm:107
> + - vm:107, and vm:108
> +- Therefore, there are consistent interdependencies between the positive and
> + negative colocation rules' service members
> +- vm:101 and vm:102 are currently assigned to node1 and node2 respectively
> +- vm:103 through vm:108 are currently assigned to node3
> +
> +Therefore, the expected outcome is:
> +- vm:101, vm:102, vm:103 should be started on node1, node2, and node3
> + respectively, as there's nothing running on there yet
> +- vm:104, vm:106, and vm:108 should all be assigned on the same node, which
> + will be node1, since it has the most resources left for vm:104
> +- vm:105 and vm:107 should both be assigned on the same node, which will be
> + node2, since both cannot be assigned to the other nodes because of the
> + colocation constraints
Would be nice to have a final sentence for the last part of the test:
"As node3 fails, ..."
---snip 8<---
> diff --git a/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc2/README
> b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc2/README
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1b788f8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc2/README
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +Test whether a set of transitive strict negative colocation rules, i.e.
> there's
I don't like the use of "transitive" here, as that comes with
connotations that just don't apply in general here, but would prefer
"pairwise".
> +negative colocation relations a->b, b->c and a->c, in conjunction with the
The relations are symmetric, so I'd write a<->b, etc.
> +static load scheduler with auto-rebalancing are applied correctly on service
> +start and in case of a subsequent failover.
> +
> +The test scenario is:
> +- vm:101 and vm:102 must be kept separate
> +- vm:102 and vm:103 must be kept separate
> +- vm:101 and vm:103 must be kept separate
> +- Therefore, vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 must be kept separate
> +
> +Therefore, the expected outcome is:
> +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 should be started on node1, node2, and node3
> + respectively, just as if the three negative colocation rule would've been
> + stated in a single negative colocation rule
This would already happen with just rebalancing though. I.e. even if I
remove the colocation rules, the part of the test output before node3
fails looks exactly the same. You could add dummy services in between or
have the nodes have rather huge differences in available resources to
make the colocation rules actually matter for the test.
> +- As node3 fails, vm:103 cannot be recovered
---snip 8<---
> diff --git a/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc3/README
> b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc3/README
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..e54a2d4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc3/README
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +Test whether a more complex set of transitive strict negative colocation
> rules,
> +i.e. there's negative colocation relations a->b, b->c and a->c, in
> conjunction
Same comments as above regarding the wording.
> +with the static load scheduler with auto-rebalancing are applied correctly on
> +service start and in case of a subsequent failover.
> +
> +The test scenario is:
> +- Essentially, all 10 strict negative colocation rules say that, vm:101,
> + vm:102, vm:103, vm:104, and vm:105 must be kept together
s/together/separate/
> +
> +Therefore, the expected outcome is:
> +- vm:101, vm:102, and vm:103 should be started on node1, node2, node3, node4,
> + and node5 respectively, just as if the 10 negative colocation rule would've
> + been stated in a single negative colocation rule
> +- As node1 and node5 fails, vm:101 and vm:105 cannot be recovered
Again, it seems like colocation rules don't actually matter for the
first half of the test.
---snip 8<---
> diff --git a/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc3/static_service_stats
> b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc3/static_service_stats
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d9dc9e7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/test/test-crs-static-rebalance-coloc3/static_service_stats
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +{
> + "vm:101": { "maxcpu": 8, "maxmem": 16000000000 },
> + "vm:102": { "maxcpu": 4, "maxmem": 24000000000 },
> + "vm:103": { "maxcpu": 2, "maxmem": 32000000000 }
vm:104 and vm:105 are not defined here
> +}
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
