Logan, makes sense to me. Actually, the behaviour you describe should be the default IMO.
On the other hand, What would a client do in a cloud if not to share resources. If not they should own their own zone. and put everything (including proxy+ssvm) in that zone. Did you implement anything yet? regards, Daan On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Logan Barfield <lbarfi...@tqhosting.com> wrote: > I was doing some testing with the explicit and implicit dedication > features, and was just wondering about the logic behind it. > > From a service provider perspective this feature seems most useful for > dedicating certain resources to a domain or account. In other words, a > client pays for a single host/cluster of hosts, and all their instances are > isolated on those hosts. > > Right now if a host/cluster is explicitly dedicated system VMs will ignore > that dedication and deploy on the dedicated hosts anyway. This isn't ideal > because the system VMs consume resources dedicated (and being paid for) by > a single client. That being said the system VMs have to get deployed > somewhere, so this is probably the best solution overall. > > To get around this issue a host can be implicitly dedicated. In this case > only VMs specifically deployed by the dedicated user will be provisioned on > their resources. This prevents unwanted resource consumption on the > dedicated infrastructure. However, this causes the opposite problem with > virtual routers. The dedicated client's virtual router is deployed on > shared resources, instead of their dedicated infrastructure. This isn't > ideal, because a customer paying for dedicated resources can be negatively > impacted by an issue with the shared hosts (e.g., host running their VR > goes down causing network outages). > > Would it be hard to change the implicit dedication logic to allow the > virtual router owned by an account to reside on their implicitly dedicated > resources, or even to prefer those resources? This would ensure that a > client paying for dedicated resources would only be affected by outages on > their own hardware. If a console proxy or secondary storage VM goes down > they would still be affected, but that's a much less urgent/immediately > visible problem than losing a virtual router. > > I know the implicit dedication manager views virtual routers as being owned > by the "system" right now, but since they are tied to a specific account I > don't think this change would be too hard to implement. > > Is my logic sound on this, or is there something I'm not considering? > > > Thank You, > > Logan Barfield > Tranquil Hosting > -- Daan
