I guess the rationale behind this design is the same health monitor definition can be used by multiple pools. You can check http://wiki.openstack.org/Quantum/LBaaS/API_1.0#Associate_Health_Monitors_with_a_Pool for API to associate a health monitor with a pool. There is another table poolmonitorassociations in DB to associate these two resources. Thanks, -Kaiwei ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kuang-Ching Wang" <kc.wang at bigswitch.com> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:40:54 PM Subject: [openstack-dev] [quantum] should LBaaS health_monitor object in db have a pool_id field In an attempt to understand how health_monitors are assigned in a LBaaS workflow, it seems to me that it should be associated with a particular pool. However, the schema for it in quantum/db does not have either a pool_id. On the other hand, each pool does maintain a list of monitors. What's the rationale of not having a pool_id field in health_monitor record? Or, should there be one added? Thanks, KC -- Kuang-Ching (KC) Wang Member of Technical Staff -- Big Switch Networks -- http://www.bigswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130211/bbc8b5ba/attachment.html>