Open Stack

On 4 July 2013 03:54, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks for starting this thread.
>
> I was pushing for the weight function.  It seems much more appropriate
> for a cloud environment than the filter.  It's an optimization that is
> always a good idea, so the weight function that works automatically
> would be good.  It's also transparent to users.
>
> Some things I don't like about the filter:
>
>  - It requires specifying a scheduler hint
>
>  - It's exposing a concept of co-locating volumes and instances on the
> same host to users.  This isn't applicable for many volume backends.  As
> a result, it's a violation of the principle where users ideally do not
> need to know or care about deployment details.

We'll probably need something like this for Ironic with persistent
volumes on machines - yes its a rare case, but when it matters, it
matters a great deal.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services