On 11/13/19 12:55 PM, Fabian Ebner wrote: > On 11/13/19 9:55 AM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 11/12/19 11:03 AM, Fabian Ebner wrote: >>> The minimum value for timeout in vm_shutdown is changed from 0 to 1, since a >>> value of 0 would trigger a hard stop for HA managed VMs. Like this the API >>> description stays valid for all cases. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.eb...@proxmox.com> >>> --- >>> >>> In vm_shutdown we'd like to pass along the timeout parameter to the HA >>> stack, >>> but the value 0 triggers a special behavior there, namely a hard stop. >>> So either the description needs to be changed to mention this behavior or >>> we just don't allow a timeout of 0 in vm_shutdown. Since a shutdown with >>> timeout 0 doesn't really make sense anyways, I opted for the latter. >>> It's the same situation for containers. >>> >> >> timeout == 0 just means instant stop, I did not checked this, but as >> both CTs and VMs allow to pass 0 it really smells like it was done by >> design.. ^^ >> >> Also, limiting API value ranges could be seen as API breakage, and that >> should be avoided if possible.. >> >> What was the behaviour of passing this for a non-HA VM/CT? >> > > If I interpreted the code correctly: > > * For 'qm shutdown --timeout=0': > ** For non-HA managed VMs it leads to (depending on whether guest agent is > enabled) a qmp command 'guest_shutdown' or 'system_powerdown'. > Then (since timeout is 0 this happens immediately) depending on --force we > either kill with SIGTERM or die with "got timeout". > ** For HA managed VMs 'qm shutdown --timeout=0' turns into a vm_stop issuing > a qmp command 'quit' and we actually wait 60 seconds for that command. > > > * For 'pct shutdown --timeout=0': > ** For non-HA managed containers we always give an extra 5 seconds of > timeout, so 5 seconds here. > ** For HA managed containers it will result in an immediate kill. > > I mean it probably doesn't really matter, there was a discrepancy between > what happens for HA managed and non-HA managed VM/CT already.
The discrepancy between HA and non-HA was not was I meant, just the non-HA part was relevant to see how the API change of disallowing 0 as timeout could affect peoples use-cases. > I can send a v2 without the new minima if you like. Yes, please. And the schema change should have been in a second patch anyway - it was independent of the HA crm-command adaption, and without that mixed in I could have already applied that one, just FYI :) Thanks! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel