On 4 July 2013 03:54, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for starting this thread. > > I was pushing for the weight function. It seems much more appropriate > for a cloud environment than the filter. It's an optimization that is > always a good idea, so the weight function that works automatically > would be good. It's also transparent to users. > > Some things I don't like about the filter: > > - It requires specifying a scheduler hint > > - It's exposing a concept of co-locating volumes and instances on the > same host to users. This isn't applicable for many volume backends. As > a result, it's a violation of the principle where users ideally do not > need to know or care about deployment details.
We'll probably need something like this for Ironic with persistent volumes on machines - yes its a rare case, but when it matters, it matters a great deal. -Rob -- Robert Collins <[email protected]> Distinguished Technologist HP Cloud Services _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
