[placement][nova][ptg] resource provider affinity

Chris Dent cdent+os at anticdent.org
Mon Apr 29 22:50:10 UTC 2019

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Eric Fried wrote:

>>> a) It assumes the meaning of "same tree" is "one level down from the
>>> root".
>> Does it? I had casually interpreted
>> "group_policy=same_tree:$GROUP_A:$GROUP_B" as meaning '$GROUP_B is
>> somewhere within the tree rooted at $GROUP_A at any level' but it
>> could just as easily be interpreted a few different ways, including
>> what you say.
> If I interpret that ^ correctly, it would require $GROUP_A (the subtree
> root) to provide resources, a scenario for which we have at least one
> counterexample (the one with network agents as resourceless providers).

Why would it require GROUP_A to provide resources? Haven't we
already established that we're going to need to lighten the
requirement that 'requiredN' must have a 'resourcesN'? If we
haven't, perhaps this is the thing that will push us that way?

Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list