Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-10 Thread Yiping Zhang
storage failure domains on a cluster basis. Simon Weller/ENA (615) 312-6068 -Original Message- From: Will Stevens [wstev...@cloudops.com] Received: Friday, 09 Sep 2016, 5:46PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org [dev@cloudstack.apache.org] Subject: Re: storage

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Tutkowski, Mike
y not just use different primary storage per cluster. You then can >>> control your storage failure domains on a cluster basis. >>> >>> Simon Weller/ENA >>> (615) 312-6068 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Will Stevens [wstev...

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Will Stevens
your storage failure domains on a cluster basis. >> >> Simon Weller/ENA >> (615) 312-6068 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Will Stevens [wstev...@cloudops.com] >> Received: Friday, 09 Sep 2016, 5:46PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org [dev@clo

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Will Stevens
> From: Will Stevens [wstev...@cloudops.com] > Received: Friday, 09 Sep 2016, 5:46PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org [dev@cloudstack.apache.org] > Subject: Re: storage affinity groups > > I have not really thought through this use case, but off the top of my > head, you MAY be

RE: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Simon Weller
[dev@cloudstack.apache.org] Subject: Re: storage affinity groups I have not really thought through this use case, but off the top of my head, you MAY be able to do something like use host anti-affinity and then use different primary storage per host affinity. I know this is not the ideal solution

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Will Stevens
_ > From: williamstev...@gmail.com <williamstev...@gmail.com> on behalf > of Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> > Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 12:44 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: storage affinity groups

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Yiping Zhang
il.com> on behalf of Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 12:44 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage affinity groups My understanding is that he wants to do anti-affinity across primary storage endpoin

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Tutkowski, Mike
ember 9, 2016 12:44 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage affinity groups My understanding is that he wants to do anti-affinity across primary storage endpoints. So if he has two web servers, it would ensure that one of his web servers is on Primary1 and the

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Yiping Zhang
9, 2016 12:44 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage affinity groups My understanding is that he wants to do anti-affinity across primary storage endpoints. So if he has two web servers, it would ensure that one of his web servers is on Primary1 and the other

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Tutkowski, Mike
behalf of Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 12:44 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage affinity groups My understanding is that he wants to do anti-affinity across primary storage endpoints. So if he has two web servers, it would ensure that one of his

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Will Stevens
.com> > Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 11:08 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: storage affinity groups > > I am not a Java developer, so I am at a total loss on Mike’s approach. How > would end users choose this new storage pool allocator from UI when > pro

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Tutkowski, Mike
s offline, then it probably means your entire datacenter is offline (ex. power loss of some sort). Talk to you later, Mike From: Yiping Zhang <yzh...@marketo.com> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 11:08 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage aff

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-09 Thread Yiping Zhang
___ From: Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 6:27 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: storage affinity groups So what would be the best way to do it? I use templates to make it simple for my users so that the Xen tools

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-08 Thread Tutkowski, Mike
. From: Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 6:27 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: storage affinity groups So what would be the best way to do it? I use templates to make it simple for my users so that the Xen tools are already installed as an e

RE: storage affinity groups

2016-09-08 Thread Marty Godsey
@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage affinity groups Well, using tags leads to proliferation of templates or service offerings etc. It is not very scalable and gets out of hand very quickly. Yiping On 9/8/16, 4:25 PM, "Marty Godsey" <ma...@gonsource.com> wrote: I

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-08 Thread Yiping Zhang
ow...@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:16 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage affinity groups If one doesn't already exist, you can write a custom storage allocator to handle this scenario. > On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Yiping Zhang

RE: storage affinity groups

2016-09-08 Thread Marty Godsey
- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:16 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: storage affinity groups If one doesn't already exist, you can write a custom storage allocator to handle this scenario. > On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:25

Re: storage affinity groups

2016-09-08 Thread Tutkowski, Mike
If one doesn't already exist, you can write a custom storage allocator to handle this scenario. > On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Yiping Zhang wrote: > > Hi, Devs: > > We all know how (anti)-host affinity group works in CloudStack, I am > wondering if there is a similar