Am 29.04.25 um 11:07 schrieb Daniel Kral: > On 4/28/25 14:46, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> I feel like we should trigger auto-migration for strict colocation >> rules. I.e. apply the rules earlier in select_service_node(), before the >> "keep current node" early return. >> >> With nofailback=0, we do not keep the current node when node priorities >> change for HA groups or the service's group changes, so it feels >> consistent to do the same for colocation rules. We'll need to be careful >> not to get a "both services now migrate towards each other" switch-up >> scenario of course. > > What scenario would that be? Or do you mean just disallowing migrating > services contradicting the HA (colocation) rules?
I just meant we need to be careful when implementing if we want to apply new rules directly/honor them while services are running. E.g. say a new rule vm:101<->vm:102 is introduced, with 101 on node A and 102 on node B. Then the HA manager should only issue a migration command 101 to B or 102 to A, but not both of course. >> We also don't hinder migrating against group priorities, where, with >> nofailback=0, it will migrate straight back again. This can be improved >> of course, but nothing new, so I'd consider it orthogonal to the >> colocation implementation here. > > Yes, it would improve UX to add migration blockers for these in the > future as the info could be exposed there without putting too much > dependency between pve-manager and pve-ha-manager. > > I'll try to add the blockers for colocation rules for v1 or a follow-up. Might be better as a follow-up/separate series, to not blow up the series here too much. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
