incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Zhang <Frank.Zh...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Tags
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 21:34:30 GMT
Maybe we can leave implicit/explicit policy to planner(allocator). We can develop different
types of planner and let user decide which one is he want

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jayesh patel [mailto:jayesh.patel@oracle.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 2:29 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: David Nalley
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Tags
> 
> A configurable default tag might address the problem at hand. The default
> tag can be changed by the admin to promote certain resources, if they are in
> abundance.
> 
> -- Jayesh
> On 5/4/2012 1:44 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> > I had brief discussion with some folks this afternoon around tags and
> > wanted to open that discussion up on the mailing list:
> >
> > Quick background:
> > CloudStack uses the concept of tags on resources so that when an
> > instance is provisioned if it has matching tags it will be provisioned
> > on the matching tagged resources. (e.g. you'd tag your SSD storage
> > with a 'really_really_fast' tag and if you provisioned the an instance
> > with a service offering that had a matching 'really_really_fast' tag
> > it would be provisioned onto the SSD storage.
> >
> > The particular behavior in question is how we handle provisioning
> > instances that don't have a matching tag. Today, you might not have
> > that 'really_really_fast' tag but your machine might still end up on
> > the 'really_really_fast'-tagged storage. (e.g. the tagged resources
> > aren't exclusively reserved for instances with matching tags)
> >
> > My initial POV was that instances that possessed non-matching tags
> > should be lower priority for the deployment, but that deployment
> > shouldn't fail merely because an or matching tagged or untagged
> > resource wasn't available.
> >
> > Alex however may have swayed me a bit - he advocated explicit
> > matching. Untagged deployments could only have untagged resources,
> > etc. And that any failure to provide enough resources results in a
> > failed deployment.
> >
> > Thoughts, comments, flames?
> >
> > --David

Mime
View raw message