On Wed 10 Jul 2013 (13:10), Joe Gordon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Ilya Kharin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all. > > > > In my opinion it is about things that can live in one form or another, > > because > > in some cases there is a need to place an instance in the same place where > > its > > block device is located or will be attached. Both solutions that let you > > do it, > > I mean filter and weigher, have a right to life. A lot depends on the > > requirements that are present when you start an instance: > > > > 1. In the case when you want to put them together preferably, there > > should be > > a weigher. If that fails, then the user should not worry about it, the > > instance will be started though not as optimally as wanted. > > 2. When it is important that they are together and nothing else is > > acceptable, > > then there should be a filter. Some applications that are built on top > > of > > OpenStack may require that instance must be together with a particular > > volume. > > > > I question how 'cloudy' an architecture that *requires* instances and > volumes be on the same node. If we treat instances as ephemeral and > volumes as persistent having them live on the same node is a contradiction.
I do fully agree with this. In the worst case, a machine requiring affinity with a volume that is stored in a compute-node without enough room will never boot. Cheers, -- Álvaro López García [email protected] Instituto de Física de Cantabria http://alvarolopez.github.io Ed. Juan Jordá, Campus UC tel: (+34) 942 200 969 Avda. de los Castros s/n 39005 Santander (SPAIN) _____________________________________________________________________ "Those that can, do. Those that can't, complain." -- Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
