Am 12.11.24 um 10:11 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: > the HA case could also switch over to this approach, if we want to > reload HA for all PVE perl modules.. if we only want it for a subset, > then yes, the/an explicit trigger is better :)
[...] > see above - the question is whether we want an explicit list of packages > that trigger HA (and risk that it runs out of sync with the modules the > HA actually uses), or whether we want to treat HA like the pve-manager > services, and just let it reload on any perl module changes that *could* > affect it.. > > if desired, I can send a similar patch for pve-ha-manager as well. Yes, that's an option, but I was wording my reply from yesterday so vague by choice (or well, being to lazy to decide so late) to not go in a explicit direction, as while it would be nice to have this covered in a general fashion, more frequently restarting HA is also something that can increase problem frequency. But, tbh., it should not be that much and it has to work anyway, so can be fine by me. Still needs the trigger from pmxcfs I guess? As IMO we should not depend that it will always ship in the same package as some perl code that falls under your generic trigger. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
