cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <>
Subject Re: Cluster/Host dedication logic
Date Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:09:43 GMT
Logan, makes sense to me. Actually, the behaviour you describe should be
the default IMO.

On the other hand, What would a client do in a cloud if not to share
resources. If not they should own their own zone. and put everything
(including proxy+ssvm) in that zone. Did you implement anything yet?


On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Logan Barfield <>

> I was doing some testing with the explicit and implicit dedication
> features, and was just wondering about the logic behind it.
> From a service provider perspective this feature seems most useful for
> dedicating certain resources to a domain or account.  In other words, a
> client pays for a single host/cluster of hosts, and all their instances are
> isolated on those hosts.
> Right now if a host/cluster is explicitly dedicated system VMs will ignore
> that dedication and deploy on the dedicated hosts anyway.  This isn't ideal
> because the system VMs consume resources dedicated (and being paid for) by
> a single client.  That being said the system VMs have to get deployed
> somewhere, so this is probably the best solution overall.
> To get around this issue a host can be implicitly dedicated.  In this case
> only VMs specifically deployed by the dedicated user will be provisioned on
> their resources.  This prevents unwanted resource consumption on the
> dedicated infrastructure.  However, this causes the opposite problem with
> virtual routers.  The dedicated client's virtual router is deployed on
> shared resources, instead of their dedicated infrastructure.  This isn't
> ideal, because a customer paying for dedicated resources can be negatively
> impacted by an issue with the shared hosts (e.g., host running their VR
> goes down causing network outages).
> Would it be hard to change the implicit dedication logic to allow the
> virtual router owned by an account to reside on their implicitly dedicated
> resources, or even to prefer those resources?  This would ensure that a
> client paying for dedicated resources would only be affected by outages on
> their own hardware.  If a console proxy or secondary storage VM goes down
> they would still be affected, but that's a much less urgent/immediately
> visible problem than losing a virtual router.
> I know the implicit dedication manager views virtual routers as being owned
> by the "system" right now, but since they are tied to a specific account I
> don't think this change would be too hard to implement.
> Is my logic sound on this, or is there something I'm not considering?
> Thank You,
> Logan Barfield
> Tranquil Hosting


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message