> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mardi 8 avril 2014 15:25 > À : openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Objet : Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Hosts within two Availability Zones : > possible > or not ? > > On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:49 +0000, Day, Phil wrote: > > On a large cloud you’re protect against this to some extent if the > > number of servers is >> number of instances in the quota. > > > > However it does feel that there are a couple of things missing to > > really provide some better protection: > > > > - A quota value on the maximum size of a server group > > - A policy setting so that the ability to use service-groups > > can be controlled on a per project basis > > Alternately, we could just have the affinity filters serve as weighting > filters > instead of returning NoValidHosts. > > That way, a request containing an affinity hint would cause the scheduler > to > prefer placing the new VM near (or not-near) other instances in the server > group, but if no hosts exist that meet that criteria, the filter simply > finds a host > with the most (or fewest, in case of anti-affinity) instances that meet > the affinity > criteria. > > Best, > -jay >
The filters guarantee the desired effect, while the weighers just give the preference. Thus it makes sense to have AntiAffinity as a filter. Otherwise what is it good for if users do not know if their anti-affiniti-ed VMs are hosted in different hosts. I prefer the idea of anti-affinity quota. May propose that. > > From: Khanh-Toan Tran [mailto:khanh-toan.t...@cloudwatt.com] > > Sent: 08 April 2014 11:32 > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Hosts within two Availability > > Zones : possible or not ? > > > > “Abusive usage” : If user can request anti-affinity VMs, then why > > doesn’t he uses that? This will result in user constantly requesting > > all his VMs being in the same anti-affinity group. This makes > > scheduler choose one physical host per VM. This will quickly flood the > > infrastructure and mess up with the objective of admin (e.g. > > Consolidation that regroup VM instead of spreading, spared hosts, > > etc) ; at some time it will be reported back that there is no host > > available, which appears as a bad experience for user. > > > > > > > > > > > > De : Ian Wells [mailto:ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk] Envoyé : mardi 8 avril > > 2014 01:02 À : OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage > > questions) Objet : Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Hosts within two > > Availability Zones : possible or not ? > > > > > > > > > > On 3 April 2014 08:21, Khanh-Toan Tran <khanh-toan.t...@cloudwatt.com> > > wrote: > > > > Otherwise we cannot provide redundancy to client except using > > Region which > > is dedicated infrastructure and networked separated and > > anti-affinity > > filter which IMO is not pragmatic as it has tendency of > > abusive usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, could you explain what you mean here by 'abusive usage'? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Ian. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev