see a use-case for
it. Others might though...
-Prachi
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:00 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Manan Shah; Alex Huang
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti
On 3/1/13 7:14 AM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:18:51PM -0800, Prachi Damle wrote:
So far per the scope of the feature, Affinity groups is an entity
created by an individual account and can be used, listed only by that
account.
Wanted to know if
:00 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Manan Shah; Alex Huang
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:36:20PM -0800, Prachi Damle wrote:
Hey all,
It seems that host affinity usecase has little value in reality and very less
guarantee
: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Manan Shah; Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Hi Manan,
I assume affinity level means affinity type.
For 4.2, plan is to add a framework for processing affinity groups and provide
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:36:20PM -0800, Prachi Damle wrote:
Hey all,
It seems that host affinity usecase has little value in reality and very less
guarantee of success given the current deployment planning mechanism.
The feature requirement says host affinity = same host. So VM's in
-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Alex,
Thanks for the detailed review. I will couple the affinity design with
the deployment planner refactoring I had next in line then. Will update
the FS with these details.
-Prachi
-Original Message-
From
the plugin implementations to the deployment.
-Prachi
-Original Message-
From: Manan Shah
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:41 AM
To: Prachi Damle; Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Hi Prachi,
My understanding
Damle; Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Hi Prachi,
My understanding is that we would build a framework for allowing admins
to specify the levels of affinity/anti-affinity but for CS 4.2, we will
support only one level
On 06/02/13 4:12 AM, Prachi Damle prachi.da...@citrix.com wrote:
As per discussions below, the scope of the feature now consists of a
generic framework for defining affinity groups in CloudStack and a
default implementation to support host affinity and anti-affinity.
Prachi,
When the
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:59:10PM +0530, Murali Reddy wrote:
On 06/02/13 4:12 AM, Prachi Damle prachi.da...@citrix.com wrote:
As per discussions below, the scope of the feature now consists of a
generic framework for defining affinity groups in CloudStack and a
default implementation to
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:59:10PM +0530, Murali Reddy wrote:
On 06/02/13 4:12 AM, Prachi Damle prachi.da...@citrix.com wrote:
As per discussions below, the scope of the feature now consists of a
generic framework for defining
; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the review, I have answered inline. Please comment.
I guess the FS needs more description reasoning the 2-component design to
avoid confusion.
-Prachi
-Original Message
-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Chris Sears chris.x.se...@sungard.com wrote:
Greetings,
I understand the motivation for a feature like this, but I'm concerned
that the concepts of affinity and anti-affinity might
we start using
the REST only API from here on?
--Alex
-Original Message-
From: Prachi Damle [mailto:prachi.da...@citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:42 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Hey all,
Following
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Hi Prachi,
A few comments about this spec.
- What is the error when planning fails? What details will it give?
[Prachi] I was planning to still rely on the deployment planner to throw
exception since planner
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Chris Sears chris.x.se...@sungard.com wrote:
Greetings,
I understand the motivation for a feature like this, but I'm concerned
that the concepts of affinity and anti-affinity might not be
appropriate cloud
in that group. Each vm will then end up
on a separate host.
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 6:30 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:22
) by
the allocation logic?
-Prachi
-Original Message-
From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:06 PM
To: CloudStack DeveloperList
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Actually the proposal is quite vague.
What does
: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules
Actually the proposal is quite vague.
What does affinity mean to the end-user?
What guarantees are being asked for?
- the vms are on the same hypervisor (affinity)
- the vms are not on the same hypervisor (anti)
- the vms are interconnected by a high
be placed on same pod or same hypervisor(cluster or host) by the
allocation logic?
-Prachi
-Original Message-
From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:06 PM
To: CloudStack DeveloperList
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity
Hi,
I would like to propose a new feature for enabling Affinity /
Anti-affinity rules in CS 4.1. I have created a JIRA ticket and provided
the requirements at the following location. Please provide feedback on
the requirements.
JIRA Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-739
Actually the proposal is quite vague.
What does affinity mean to the end-user?
What guarantees are being asked for?
- the vms are on the same hypervisor (affinity)
- the vms are not on the same hypervisor (anti)
- the vms are interconnected by a high-speed interconnect (affinity)
- the vms are
22 matches
Mail list logo
