<tt><font size=2>Jay Lau <jay.lau.513@gmail.com> wrote on 04/27/2014
12:31:01 AM:<br>
<br>
> I think server group is an important feature especially when working<br>
> with heat auto scaling group, there is already some discussion for
this <br>
> </font></tt><a href=http://markmail.org/message/jl5wlx3nr3g53ko5><tt><font size=2>http://markmail.org/message/jl5wlx3nr3g53ko5</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> The current server group feature does support
add/delete a VM <br>
> instance to/from the server group but seems not able to manage <br>
> existing VM instances, but this can be enhanced.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> The server group feature need two steps to create
the VM instance:</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> 1) Create a server group with policy</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> 2) Create VMs for the server group<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> What Jay Pipes proposed is using resource tags
directly:</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> 1) Create VMs with a resource tag to specify
the policy.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>No, the tag contributes to the grouping; the policy
is identified by the choice of command line switch (--affinity vs. --anti-affinity).<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> I think that those two directions are very similar,
but what Jay <br>
> Pipes proposed does not specify the resource group and seems the <br>
> resource group was implicitly specified in resource tag. <br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>In short, the proposal from Jay Pipes *does* have
groups but their membership is declared in a different way than in the
current server groups feature. Jay's proposal is not really about
*removing* server groups but rather it is a proposal to change their API.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Regards,</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Mike</font></tt>