On 07/10/2013 08:34 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 4 July 2013 03:54, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> 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.
I believe you, but I guess I'd like to better understand how this works to make sure what gets added actually solves your use case. Is there already support for Cinder managed persistent volumes that live on baremetal nodes? -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
