I can't agree more on this. Although the name sounds identical to AWS, Nova AZs are *not* for segregating compute nodes, but rather exposing to users a certain sort of grouping. Please see this pointer for more info if needed : http://russellbryantnet.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/availability-zones-and-host-aggregates-in-openstack-compute-nova/
Regarding the bug mentioned by Vish [1], I'm the owner of it. I took it a while ago, but things and priorities changed so I can take a look over it this week and hope to deliver a patch by next week. Thanks, -Sylvain [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1277230 2014-03-26 19:00 GMT+01:00 Chris Friesen <chris.frie...@windriver.com>: > On 03/26/2014 11:17 AM, Khanh-Toan Tran wrote: > > I don't know why you need a >> compute node that belongs to 2 different availability-zones. Maybe >> I'm wrong but for me it's logical that availability-zones do not >> share the same compute nodes. The "availability-zones" have the role >> of partition your compute nodes into "zones" that are physically >> separated (in large term it would require separation of physical >> servers, networking equipments, power sources, etc). So that when >> user deploys 2 VMs in 2 different zones, he knows that these VMs do >> not fall into a same host and if some zone falls, the others continue >> working, thus the client will not lose all of his VMs. >> > > See Vish's email. > > Even under the original meaning of availability zones you could > realistically have multiple orthogonal availability zones based on "room", > or "rack", or "network", or "dev" vs "production", or even "has_ssds" and a > compute node could reasonably be part of several different zones because > they're logically in different namespaces. > > Then an end-user could boot an instance, specifying "networkA", "dev", and > "has_ssds" and only hosts that are part of all three zones would match. > > Even if they're not used for orthogonal purposes, multiple availability > zones might make sense. Currently availability zones are the only way an > end-user has to specify anything about the compute host he wants to run on. > So it's not entirely surprising that people might want to overload them > for purposes other than physical partitioning of machines. > > Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
