We are using "User-dispersing" deployment algorithm in Compute Offerings, which should place VM (but doesn't guaranties... = I guess same as with anti-afinity rules....) on different hosts. Not sure if this takes cluster into consideration though., For cluster anti-afinity - for i.e. 10 VMs, that means trying to deploy VM in 10 Clusters, not sure if this is realistic for most customers...but nice to have definitively!
Best Andrija On 26 September 2017 at 23:57, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com> wrote: > Hi Ivan, > I don't think cloudstack offer cluster anti affinity and i'm sure i would > be in favor of introducing another anti affinity level, because it would > expose cluster notion to your cloud user. > > Although, look at the vm provisionning strategy config, their should be a > deployment strategy that would spread account vms across pods or clusters, > or prefer pod/cluster proximity. I think this could help you. > > Regards, > > Le 19 sept. 2017 01 h 57, "Ivan Kudryavtsev" <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> a > écrit : > > > Hello, community. Right now cloudstack has affinity implementation for > host > > anti-affinity and it's great and useful, but since the storage is often > > defined for a cluster (unless it's local or clustered like Ceph), it > > defined a failure domain. Does anybody experienced "cluster > anti-affinity" > > implementation. Is it useful or were declined in the past by dev team? > Any > > thoughts? > > > > How you tackle with VMs which should be completely independent and fault > > tolerant with shared storage (not Ceph)? I see that zone-level approach > > works for sure, but if the requirement is for intra-zone, I don't see the > > way to implement it, any thoughts? > > > > -- > > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > > Bitworks Software, Ltd. > > Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > > > -- Andrija Panić
