Jay Pipes wrote: >I'm proposing getting rid of the host aggregate hack (or maybe evolving >it?) as well as the availability zone concept and replacing them with a >more flexible generic container object that may be hierarchical in >nature.
Is the thing you're proposing to replace them with something that already exists or a brand new thing you're proposing should be created? We need some sort of construct that allows the tenant to be confident that they aren't going to lose multiple VMs simultaneously due to a failure of underlying hardware. The semantics of it need to be easily comprehensible to the tenant, otherwise you'll get people thinking they're protected because they built a redundant pair of VMs but sheer bad luck results in them losing them both at the same time. We're using availability zone for that currently and it seems to serve the purpose in a way that's easy to explain to a tenant. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev