Search results

Hi! Thanks for the feedback! Generally, an HA resource must be able to run on any node and also be migratable to any node. Otherwise, one needs to encode these constraints in HA rules. I've sent in a patch [0] to add notes about this so that it is more obvious as it was rather an implicit...

Hi! Unfortunately, this is a bug, which was introduced in pve-ha-manager 5.1.2, but is fixed for the current pve-ha-manager 5.2.0, which is on the pve-test and pve-no-subscription repositories. If you currently cannot update to this package version, it should work to add the resources option...

Thanks for the feedback! We also thought about including more terms to the "cost function" of a migration, though we mainly focused on the core feature first. The current load balancing implementation focuses on reducing the imbalance between the nodes as much as possible. The larger the...

Yes, good idea! We already thought about this during development, though we were focusing on the core feature first. Feel free to create a Bugzilla entry [0] for this in the mean time, though as this is relatively trivial to implement and as you said causes downtime while moving and restarting...

Yes, some recent security fixes for the pve-manager package forced us to ship the package, which already includes the load balancer options in the web interface, earlier to all repositories, while we're still waiting to move pve-ha-manager 5.2.0 and pve-cluster 9.1.2 to the enterprise...

Hi! Recent security fixes in the pve-manager package forced us to ship this package earlier to all repositories (including the enterprise repository), which already contain the settings for the load balancer in the web interface. Though the load balancing functionality from pve-ha-manager...

Hi! Thanks for the feedback! The load balancer takes both memory and CPU in account. Ad weighing, see the next paragraphs. The load balancer can score the balancing migrations by either one of these methods. The brute-force method (as in 'greedily find the best balancing migration') does...

I proposed to change that since the failback flag's description [0] explicitly states it's only concerned about moving back to a higher priority node class, but for now it's a proposal ;). Exactly, in the end if two nodes have the exact same score (e.g. exactly the same amount of guests on each...

Thanks for the input! This should be doable, but since we haven't tracked whether migrations are initiated by a user or some automatic mechanism yet, this should be tracked in a separate Bugzilla entry, so feel free to create one for this here [0]. This could also be related to another feature...

Thanks a lot for testing and sending in a report! There is a patch series in review, which overhauls the CRS section itself and adds documentation for the new load balancing system here [0], but this will certainly be available before or in the Proxmox VE 9.2 release. External feedback on these...

Not directly, this will only be respected if there are no affinity rules, which prohibit this behavior. For example, if the node affinity rule in your second scenario would have been strict, then the behavior would be correct as the HA resource on node3 does not have any other place to go but...

In general, there shouldn't really be a precedence as all of those conditions should hold at the same time. The rule verification system does dismiss many types of affinity rules, which cannot be determined to be resolvable at runtime, see [0]. There are still valid cases, which still could...

The disarm-ha and arm-ha commands are mainly intended for specific maintenance tasks, where the whole cluster communication stack is temporarily unavailable or other situations, where one wants to avoid the HA stack make a node fence. The HA Manager should be able to handle complete cluster...

Welcome to the Proxmox forum, Libero_AT! For scenario 1, it seems like that the current HA stack gives more priority that the resource affinity rule holds than whether it should migrate back to its maintenance node. For scenario 2, I assume that the negative resource affinity rule (keep...

Hi! Could you post the output of pveversion -v, pct start 103 --debug and syslog which includes the starting of the container? Also what version of apparmor is running on the host?

Hi! Could you provide the migrated VMs config where this does happen? Which storages/filesystems are the disks stored on?

Yes, there currently is no option to bulk add them to the HA stack, but feel free to add a feature request in our Bugzilla [0] such that we can track it there with some description what it should do. [0] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=pve&component=HA

Good question! But yes, in the proposed 2-node cluster setup with a QDevice, the HA Manager will only move one of the HA resources to another node and keep the other one as-is, because it is known that there aren't any other viable nodes to migrate to. In fact, it is the same behavior as...

Hi! Yes, currently, this is the expected behavior as the HA Manager will detect that each HA resource is on the same node as a HA resource it must not be together with and schedules both to move to other nodes. Negative HA resource affinity rules are relatively strict at the moment, as in...

Hi! There should be no specific reason why the fencing status is either on the top or the bottom. I couldn't yet reproduce the order of the first screenshot, does it happen randomly on reloading or move while staying on the page where it automatically updates?