Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral: > 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 > +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 > + > +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
Orthogonal to my other reply, I kinda feel like the inverse test would actually be more interesting. Have a single rule and turn off (and then on again) each node in turn to see that all pairwise rules (that derive from the common rule) are actually honored, i.e. no service can be recovered. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
